↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Antibiotic regimens for the empirical treatment of newborn infants with necrotising enterocolitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2012
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
Title
Antibiotic regimens for the empirical treatment of newborn infants with necrotising enterocolitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007448.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dharmesh Shah, John KH Sinn

Abstract

Although the exact aetiology of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) remains unknown, research suggests that it is multifactorial; suspected pathophysiological mechanisms include immaturity, intestinal ischaemia, disruption of intestinal mucosal integrity, formula feeding, hyperosmolar load to the intestine, infection and bacterial translocation. Various antibiotic regimens have been widely used in the treatment of NEC.

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 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 125 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 12%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Other 11 9%
Other 26 20%
Unknown 36 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 39 31%

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 12 November 2015.
All research outputs
#916,698
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,709
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,005
of 124,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#16
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 124,492 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.