↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Intrarectal quinine versus intravenous or intramuscular quinine for treating Plasmodium falciparum malaria

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
Title
Intrarectal quinine versus intravenous or intramuscular quinine for treating <i>Plasmodium falciparum</i> malaria
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2009
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004009.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Eisenhut, Aika AA Omari

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 87 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 17 19%
Unknown 27 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Unspecified 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 33 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 05 March 2024.
All research outputs
#8,571,053
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,070
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,553
of 184,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#44
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 184,852 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.