↓ Skip to main content

Topical antifungal treatments for tinea cruris and tinea corporis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2014
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
26 tweeters
facebook
8 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
192 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
Topical antifungal treatments for tinea cruris and tinea corporis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009992.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Magdy El-Gohary, Esther J van Zuuren, Zbys Fedorowicz, Hana Burgess, Liz Doney, Beth Stuart, Michael Moore, Paul Little

Abstract

Tinea infections are fungal infections of the skin caused by dermatophytes. It is estimated that 10% to 20% of the world population is affected by fungal skin infections. Sites of infection vary according to geographical location, the organism involved, and environmental and cultural differences. Both tinea corporis, also referred to as 'ringworm' and tinea cruris or 'jock itch' are conditions frequently seen by primary care doctors and dermatologists. The diagnosis can be made on clinical appearance and can be confirmed by microscopy or culture. A wide range of topical antifungal drugs are used to treat these superficial dermatomycoses, but it is unclear which are the most effective.

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 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 189 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 23%
Student > Bachelor 29 15%
Researcher 23 12%
Unspecified 19 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 9%
Other 59 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 94 49%
Unspecified 26 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 6%
Other 31 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 30 April 2018.
All research outputs
#447,817
of 12,875,491 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,447
of 10,460 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,219
of 193,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#28
of 227 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,875,491 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 10,460 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 193,174 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 227 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.