↓ 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 (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
153 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

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users 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 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 136 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 13%
Researcher 13 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Student > Postgraduate 12 9%
Other 33 24%
Unknown 36 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 5%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 42 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 02 February 2022.
All research outputs
#2,418,121
of 25,388,353 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,987
of 12,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,149
of 69,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,388,353 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,763 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.5. 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 69,852 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 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 74% of its contemporaries.