↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for atrophic rhinitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 Mendeley
Title
Interventions for atrophic rhinitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008280.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anupam Mishra, Rahul Kawatra, Manoj Gola

Abstract

Atrophic rhinitis is a chronic nasal pathology characterised by the formation of thick dry crusts in a roomy nasal cavity, which has resulted from progressive atrophy of the nasal mucosa and underlying bone. The common symptoms may include foetor, ozaena, crusting/nasal obstruction, epistaxis, anosmia/cacosmia and secondary infection with maggot infestation. Its prevalence varies in different regions of the world and it is common in tropical countries. The condition is predominantly seen in young and middle-aged adults, especially females, with a racial preference amongst Asians, Hispanics and African-Americans. A wide variety of treatment modalities have been described in the literature, however the mainstay of treatment is conservative (for example, nasal irrigation and douches; nose drops (e.g. glucose-glycerine, liquid paraffin); antibiotics and antimicrobials; vasodilators and prostheses). Surgical treatment aims to decrease the size of the nasal cavities, promote regeneration of normal mucosa, increase lubrication of dry nasal mucosa and improve the vascularity of the nasal cavities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 163 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 13%
Student > Bachelor 20 12%
Other 12 7%
Researcher 12 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 29 17%
Unknown 63 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 6%
Computer Science 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 10 6%
Unknown 66 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 September 2019.
All research outputs
#7,811,404
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,625
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,003
of 258,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#125
of 203 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 258,519 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 203 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.