↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Continuous infusion versus bolus injection of loop diuretics in congestive heart failure

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2005
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
19 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
141 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Continuous infusion versus bolus injection of loop diuretics in congestive heart failure
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2005
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003178.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Raymund K. Salvador, Felix Eduardo Punzalan, Nannette R Rey, Margaret Ruth Bernado, Mary Dawn Nablo

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 130 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Student > Master 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Other 12 9%
Other 36 26%
Unknown 28 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 74 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 4%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Computer Science 2 1%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 33 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 27 September 2021.
All research outputs
#2,138,337
of 19,012,843 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,742
of 11,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,201
of 274,890 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#27
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,012,843 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,917 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 274,890 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.