| Title |
Interventions for preventing infection in nephrotic syndrome
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd003964.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hong Mei Wu, Jin‐Ling Tang, Li Cao, Zhao Hui Sha, Youping Li |
| Abstract |
Infection is one of the most common complications and still remains a significant cause of morbidity and occasionally mortality in patients, especially children with nephrotic syndrome. Many different prophylactic interventions have been used or recommended for reducing the risks of infection in nephrotic syndrome in clinical practice. Whether the existing evidence is scientifically rigorous and which prophylactic intervention can be recommended for routine use based on the current evidence is still unknown. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 240 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 238 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 40 | 17% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 24 | 10% |
| Researcher | 23 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 8% |
| Other | 40 | 17% |
| Unknown | 70 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 96 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 9% |
| Psychology | 9 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 26 | 11% |
| Unknown | 75 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 April 2012.
All research outputs
#16,781,609
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,370
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,914
of 174,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#146
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 174,458 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.