↓ Skip to main content

Zinc supplements for treating thalassaemia and sickle cell disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
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 (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 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
Zinc supplements for treating thalassaemia and sickle cell disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009415.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kye Mon Min Swe, Adinegara BL Abas, Amit Bhardwaj, Ankur Barua, N S Nair

Abstract

Haemoglobinopathies, inherited disorders of haemoglobin synthesis (thalassaemia) or structure (sickle cell disease), are responsible for significant morbidity and mortality throughout the world. The WHO estimates that, globally, 5% of adults are carriers of a haemoglobin condition, 2.9% are carriers of thalassaemia and 2.3% are carriers of sickle cell disease. Carriers are found worldwide as a result of migration of various ethnic groups to different regions of the world. Zinc is an easily available supplement and intervention programs have been carried out to prevent deficiency in people with thalassaemia or sickle cell anaemia. It is important to evaluate the role of zinc supplementation in the treatment of thalassaemia and sickle cell anaemia to reduce deaths due to complications.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 106 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 27%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Student > Postgraduate 12 11%
Researcher 11 10%
Unspecified 10 9%
Other 32 30%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 44%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 14%
Unspecified 15 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 18 October 2014.
All research outputs
#1,713,321
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,969
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,619
of 149,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#54
of 144 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 149,674 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 144 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 62% of its contemporaries.