↓ 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 (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
14 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
283 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
181 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.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 181 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 176 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 18%
Student > Postgraduate 18 10%
Student > Bachelor 18 10%
Researcher 15 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 8%
Other 35 19%
Unknown 47 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 75 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Psychology 6 3%
Other 15 8%
Unknown 54 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 17 May 2023.
All research outputs
#2,089,363
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,394
of 11,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,320
of 104,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 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 11,483 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 104,691 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 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.