↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Oral rehydration salt solution for treating cholera: ≤ 270 mOsm/L solutions vs ≥ 310 mOsm/L solutions

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 Mendeley
Title
Oral rehydration salt solution for treating cholera: ≤ 270 mOsm/L solutions vs ≥ 310 mOsm/L solutions
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003754.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alfred Musekiwa, Jimmy Volmink

Abstract

Oral rehydration solution (ORS) is used to treat the dehydration caused by diarrhoeal diseases, including cholera. ORS formulations with an osmolarity (a measure of solute concentration) of ≤ 270 mOsm/L (ORS ≤ 270) are safe and more effective than ORS formulations with an osmolarity of ≥ 310 mOsm/L (ORS ≥ 310) for treating non-cholera diarrhoea. As cholera causes rapid electrolyte loss, it is important to know if these benefits are similar for people suffering from cholera.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 146 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 14%
Student > Master 20 13%
Researcher 18 12%
Other 13 9%
Student > Postgraduate 11 7%
Other 36 24%
Unknown 30 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 8%
Unspecified 8 5%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 36 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 February 2022.
All research outputs
#3,617,468
of 22,678,224 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,113
of 12,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,297
of 240,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#81
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,678,224 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 240,857 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.