↓ Skip to main content

Children with chronic cough: when is watchful waiting appropriate? Development of likelihood ratios for assessing children with chronic cough

Overview of attention for article published in CHEST, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Children with chronic cough: when is watchful waiting appropriate? Development of likelihood ratios for assessing children with chronic cough
Published in
CHEST, December 2014
DOI 10.1378/chest.14-2155
Pubmed ID
Authors

A.B. Chang, P.P. Van Asperen, N. Glasgow, C.F. Robertson, C.M. Mellis, I.B. Masters, L.I. Landau, L. Teoh, I. Tjhung, H.L. Petsky, P.S. Morris, Anne B. Chang, Peter P. Van Asperen, Nicholas Glasgow, Colin F. Robertson, Craig M. Mellis, I. Brent Masters, Louis I. Landau, Laurel Teoh, Irene Tjhung, Helen L. Petsky, Peter S. Morris, Chang AB, Van Asperen PP, Glasgow N, Robertson CF, Mellis CM, Masters IB, Landau LI, Teoh L, Tjhung I, Petsky HL, Morris PS

Abstract

Chronic cough is associated with poor quality of life and may signify a serious underlying disease. Differentiating non-specific cough (when 'watchful waiting' can be safely undertaken) from specific cough (treatment and/or further investigations are beneficial) would be clinically useful. In 326 children, we aimed to; (a) determine how well cough pointers (used in guidelines) differentiate specific from non-specific cough; and (b) describe the clinical profile of children whose cough resolved without medications ('spontaneous-resolution').

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 5%
Unknown 21 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 3 14%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Student > Master 3 14%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Other 8 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 82%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 31 March 2015.
All research outputs
#2,285,482
of 11,053,031 outputs
Outputs from CHEST
#2,115
of 7,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,468
of 250,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CHEST
#71
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,053,031 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,750 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 250,863 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.