| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 21% |
| Argentina | 3 | 21% |
| Peru | 2 | 14% |
| Japan | 1 | 7% |
| Canada | 1 | 7% |
| Chile | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 3 | 21% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 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 | 142 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 27 | 18% |
| Researcher | 16 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 9% |
| Other | 26 | 18% |
| Unknown | 35 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 60 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 5% |
| Psychology | 5 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 10% |
| Unknown | 42 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 09 April 2024.
All research outputs
#1,431,047
of 25,727,480 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,038
of 13,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,502
of 105,976 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,727,480 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 13,155 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 105,976 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 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.