↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for drooling in children with cerebral palsy.

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 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 (83rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
174 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 drooling in children with cerebral palsy.
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008624.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Walshe M, Smith M, Pennington L, Walshe, Margaret, Smith, Martine, Pennington, Lindsay

Abstract

Drooling is a common problem for children with cerebral palsy (CP). This can be distressing for these children as well as for their parents and caregivers. The consequences of drooling include risk of social rejection, damp and soiled clothing, unpleasant odour, irritated chapped skin, mouth infections, dehydration, interference with speech, damage to books, communication aids, computers, and the risk of social isolation (Blasco 1992; Van der Burg 2006). A range of interventions exist that aim to reduce or eliminate drooling. There is a lack of consensus regarding which interventions are most effective for children with CP.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 174 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 170 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 23%
Researcher 26 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 12%
Student > Bachelor 21 12%
Other 13 7%
Other 53 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 44%
Unspecified 25 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 11%
Psychology 17 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Other 27 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 17 February 2017.
All research outputs
#1,759,527
of 12,101,174 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,317
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,343
of 286,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#197
of 412 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,101,174 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 286,658 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 412 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.