↓ 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 (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 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 7 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 128 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 125 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 16%
Researcher 18 14%
Student > Master 18 14%
Other 13 10%
Student > Postgraduate 11 9%
Other 25 20%
Unknown 23 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 9%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 29 23%

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 15 November 2021.
All research outputs
#3,161,097
of 19,762,584 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,752
of 11,952 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,011
of 236,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#229
of 492 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,762,584 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,952 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 236,714 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 492 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 53% of its contemporaries.