↓ Skip to main content
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 (96th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
twitter
15 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
4 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor
guideline
1 clinical guideline source

Readers on

mendeley
285 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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.
Article details
Title
Topical application of chlorhexidine to neonatal umbilical cords for prevention of omphalitis and neonatal mortality in a rural district of Pakistan: a community-based, cluster-randomised trial
Published in
The Lancet, February 2012
DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61877-1
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Umbilical cord infection (omphalitis) is a risk factor for neonatal sepsis and mortality in low-resource settings where home deliveries are common. We aimed to assess the effect of umbilical-cord cleansing with 4% chlorhexidine (CHX) solution, with or without handwashing with antiseptic soap, on the incidence of omphalitis and neonatal mortality.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 285 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 276 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 16%
Researcher 36 13%
Student > Bachelor 29 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 8%
Student > Postgraduate 19 7%
Other 55 19%
Unknown 77 27%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 108 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 12%
Social Sciences 16 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 2%
Other 27 9%
Unknown 81 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 01 December 2018.
All research outputs
#1,783,074
of 31,959,560 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#11,840
of 49,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,923
of 290,690 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#109
of 488 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 31,959,560 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 49,967 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 64.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 290,690 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 488 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.