↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Routine neonatal circumcision for the prevention of urinary tract infections in infancy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 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 (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
15 X users
facebook
12 Facebook pages
wikipedia
10 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
Title
Routine neonatal circumcision for the prevention of urinary tract infections in infancy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009129.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vanitha A Jagannath, Zbys Fedorowicz, Vikas Sud, Abhishek Kumar Verma, Sakineh Hajebrahimi

Abstract

Neonatal circumcision is a fairly common surgical procedure that may be carried out for medical reasons, one of them being prevention of urinary tract infections (UTI) in male infants. Circumcision could help in reducing the incidence of UTI by reducing periurethral bacterial colonization, which is accepted as a potential risk factor in UTI. Evidence is needed to inform the benefits or harm for the routine use of this intervention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Macao 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 117 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 16%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Researcher 9 8%
Student > Postgraduate 9 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 42 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Psychology 5 4%
Chemistry 2 2%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 48 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 16 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,300,457
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,749
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,785
of 192,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#56
of 245 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 192,741 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 245 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.