↓ Skip to main content

Once or twice daily versus three times daily amoxicillin with or without clavulanate for the treatment of acute otitis media

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
61 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Once or twice daily versus three times daily amoxicillin with or without clavulanate for the treatment of acute otitis media
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004975.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sanguansak Thanaviratananich, Malinee Laopaiboon, Patravoot Vatanasapt

Abstract

Acute otitis media (AOM) is a common problem in children, for which amoxicillin, with or without clavulanate, is frequently prescribed as a treatment of choice. The conventional recommendation is either three or four daily doses. However, nowadays it is frequently prescribed as once or twice daily doses. If once or twice daily amoxicillin, with or without clavulanate, is as effective for acute otitis media as three or four times a day, it may be more convenient to give the medication once or twice a day to children and hence improve compliance.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 61 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 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
Unknown 103 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 22%
Other 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Student > Master 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Other 25 24%
Unknown 18 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 23 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 46. 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 15 October 2019.
All research outputs
#472,347
of 15,482,859 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,218
of 11,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,820
of 263,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#17
of 135 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,482,859 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 11,201 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 263,769 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 135 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.