You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Nasogastric hydration versus intravenous hydration for infants with bronchiolitis: a randomised trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, December 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1016/s2213-2600(12)70053-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ed Oakley, Meredith Borland, Jocelyn Neutze, Jason Acworth, David Krieser, Stuart Dalziel, Andrew Davidson, Susan Donath, Kim Jachno, Mike South, Theane Theophilos, Franz E Babl, for the Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative |
| Abstract |
Bronchiolitis is the most common lower respiratory tract infection in infants and the leading cause of hospital admission. Hydration is a mainstay of treatment, but insufficient evidence exists to guide clinical practice. We aimed to assess whether intravenous hydration or nasogastric hydration is better for treatment of infants. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 Kingdom | 3 | 25% |
| United States | 2 | 17% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 8% |
| Turkey | 1 | 8% |
| Australia | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 58% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 17% |
| Scientists | 2 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 142 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 10% |
| Researcher | 14 | 10% |
| Other | 11 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 8% |
| Other | 32 | 22% |
| Unknown | 42 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 67 | 47% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 2% |
| Engineering | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 7% |
| Unknown | 44 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 20 November 2018.
All research outputs
#2,376,871
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
#1,200
of 2,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,344
of 288,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
#2
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,867 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 78.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 288,755 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 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.