↓ Skip to main content

Oral versus intravenous rehydration for treating dehydration due to gastroenteritis in children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
26 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
121 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Oral versus intravenous rehydration for treating dehydration due to gastroenteritis in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2006
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004390.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa Hartling, Steven Bellemare, Natasha Wiebe, Kelly F Russell, Terry P Klassen, William Raine Craig, Hartling L, Bellemare S, Wiebe N, Russell K, Klassen TP, Craig W

Abstract

Dehydration associated with gastroenteritis is a serious complication. Oral rehydration is an effective and inexpensive treatment, but some physicians prefer intravenous methods.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Unknown 118 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 17%
Student > Master 19 16%
Researcher 14 11%
Other 13 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Other 43 35%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 78 64%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 11%
Unspecified 12 10%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 28 November 2016.
All research outputs
#463,087
of 12,320,334 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,267
of 8,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,114
of 282,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#73
of 435 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,320,334 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,415 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 282,838 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 435 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.