↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for preventing infection in nephrotic syndrome

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
219 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Interventions for preventing infection in nephrotic syndrome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003964.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hong Mei Wu, Jin-Ling Tang, Li Cao, Zhao Hui Sha, Youping Li

Abstract

Infection is one of the most common complications and still remains a significant cause of morbidity and occasionally mortality in patients, especially children with nephrotic syndrome. Many different prophylactic interventions have been used or recommended for reducing the risks of infection in nephrotic syndrome in clinical practice. Whether the existing evidence is scientifically rigorous and which prophylactic intervention can be recommended for routine use based on the current evidence is still unknown.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 219 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 217 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 17%
Student > Postgraduate 24 11%
Student > Bachelor 23 11%
Researcher 22 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 9%
Other 38 17%
Unknown 55 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 92 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 10%
Psychology 9 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Other 25 11%
Unknown 59 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 April 2012.
All research outputs
#14,725,727
of 22,664,644 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,606
of 12,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,018
of 161,880 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#148
of 176 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,644 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 161,880 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 176 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.