| Title |
Continuous infusion versus bolus injection of loop diuretics for congestive heart failure
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd014811 |
| Authors |
Juqian Zhang, Can Zhou, Mahnoor Ihsan, Andreas Tsangarides, Sarah Ahmed, Ranga Fernando, Tin Sanda Lwin, Shazmeen Surtee, Ebony Farnell, Muhammad Chaudhary, Gregory YH Lip, Ruaraidh A Hill, Rajiv Sankaranarayanan |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 | 12 | 50% |
| Italy | 1 | 4% |
| Egypt | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Turkey | 1 | 4% |
| Romania | 1 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 5 | 21% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 9 | 38% |
| Members of the public | 9 | 38% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 3% |
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 58 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 16% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Professor | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Other | 15 | 24% |
| Unknown | 9 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 42 | 67% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 11 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 24 August 2022.
All research outputs
#2,991,546
of 25,462,162 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,695
of 12,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,392
of 434,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#88
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,462,162 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,766 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 434,665 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.