↓ Skip to main content

Effects of sewerage on diarrhoea and enteric infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Lancet Infectious Diseases, July 2010
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 (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
6 policy sources
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
204 Mendeley
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
Effects of sewerage on diarrhoea and enteric infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Lancet Infectious Diseases, July 2010
DOI 10.1016/s1473-3099(10)70123-7
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Sanitation is inadequate in most cities in developing countries, with major effects on infectious disease burden: in this situation, is piped sewerage an appropriate solution, or should efforts focus on systems based on onsite solutions, such as latrines? We reviewed the effects of the presence of sewerage systems on diarrhoeal disease and related outcomes. We included only observational studies because so far there have been no randomised controlled trials.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 204 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 %
Colombia 2 <1%
Vietnam 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Pakistan 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 196 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 17%
Researcher 31 15%
Student > Master 28 14%
Other 15 7%
Student > Bachelor 12 6%
Other 39 19%
Unknown 45 22%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 33 16%
Engineering 30 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 27 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 6%
Social Sciences 11 5%
Other 31 15%
Unknown 60 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 09 December 2025.
All research outputs
#2,509,397
of 34,526,284 outputs
Outputs from Lancet Infectious Diseases
#2,645
of 7,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,970
of 151,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lancet Infectious Diseases
#6
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,526,284 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,203 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 85.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 151,303 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.