↓ 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 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
244 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 244 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 242 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 16%
Student > Postgraduate 25 10%
Student > Bachelor 24 10%
Researcher 23 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 8%
Other 39 16%
Unknown 74 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 95 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 9%
Psychology 8 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Social Sciences 6 2%
Other 27 11%
Unknown 79 32%
Attention Score in Context

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
#16,781,609
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,370
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,914
of 174,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#146
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 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 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 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 174,458 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 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.