↓ Skip to main content

Home- versus hospital-based phototherapy for the treatment of non-haemolytic jaundice in infants at more than 37 weeks' gestation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2014
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 (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 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
Home- versus hospital-based phototherapy for the treatment of non-haemolytic jaundice in infants at more than 37 weeks' gestation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010212.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ujjwala S Malwade, Luke A Jardine

Abstract

Phototherapy is commonly used for the treatment of neonatal jaundice, and home-based phototherapy is now being used in certain centres. Home-based phototherapy offers possible advantages by avoiding prolonged hospital admissions, promoting mother-infant bonding and reducing hospitalisation costs. Potential problems include increased duration of phototherapy, increased readmission to hospital and increased risk of bilirubin encephalopathy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 102 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 16%
Researcher 14 14%
Student > Master 14 14%
Other 10 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Other 24 23%
Unknown 18 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 18%
Psychology 6 6%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 23 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 March 2020.
All research outputs
#2,966,930
of 15,842,075 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,672
of 11,299 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,533
of 157,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#112
of 207 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,842,075 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,299 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.5. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 157,695 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 207 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.