↓ 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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

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

Citations

dimensions_citation
222 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 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 136 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 131 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 21%
Student > Postgraduate 16 12%
Researcher 14 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 10%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Other 33 24%
Unknown 18 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 6%
Psychology 5 4%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 24 18%

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 19 April 2019.
All research outputs
#1,337,263
of 16,470,846 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,520
of 11,507 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,147
of 137,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#16
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,470,846 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 11,507 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 137,182 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 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.