↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for recurrent idiopathic epistaxis (nosebleeds) in children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2012
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 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.
Title
Interventions for recurrent idiopathic epistaxis (nosebleeds) in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004461.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ali Qureishi, Martin J Burton

Abstract

Recurrent idiopathic epistaxis (nosebleeds) in children is repeated nasal bleeding in patients up to the age of 16 for which no specific cause has been identified. Although nosebleeds are very common in children, and most cases are self limiting or settle with simple measures (such as pinching the nose), more severe recurrent cases can require treatment from a healthcare professional. However, there is no consensus on the effectiveness of the different clinical interventions currently used in managing this condition.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Unknown 111 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 13%
Other 12 11%
Student > Master 11 10%
Researcher 8 7%
Other 26 23%
Unknown 20 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 64 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Psychology 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Unspecified 2 2%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 22 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 13 April 2019.
All research outputs
#776,222
of 13,606,339 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,458
of 10,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,433
of 143,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#13
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,606,339 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 10,675 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. 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 143,780 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 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.