↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Lactulose versus Polyethylene Glycol for Chronic Constipation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2010
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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
241 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
160 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
Lactulose versus Polyethylene Glycol for Chronic Constipation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007570.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heather Lee-Robichaud, Kathryn Thomas, Jenna Morgan, Richard L Nelson

Abstract

Constipation is a common clinical problem. Lactulose and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) are both commonly used osmotic laxatives that have been shown to be effective and safe treatments for chronic constipation. However, there is no definitive data as to which provides the best treatment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 155 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 19%
Student > Postgraduate 17 11%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Researcher 14 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Other 35 22%
Unknown 34 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 4%
Psychology 6 4%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 40 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 August 2021.
All research outputs
#1,804,119
of 21,792,010 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,072
of 12,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,299
of 152,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#18
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,792,010 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,114 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 152,290 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 77 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.