↓ Skip to main content

Smectite for acute infectious diarrhoea in children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2018
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)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
20 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
Smectite for acute infectious diarrhoea in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011526.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giordano Pérez-Gaxiola, Carlos A Cuello-García, Ivan D Florez, Víctor M Pérez-Pico

Abstract

As mortality secondary to acute infectious diarrhoea has decreased worldwide, the focus shifts to adjuvant therapies to lessen the burden of disease. Smectite, a medicinal clay, could offer a complementary intervention to reduce the duration of diarrhoea. To assess the effects of smectite for treating acute infectious diarrhoea in children. We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Pubmed), Embase (Ovid), LILACS, reference lists from studies and previous reviews, and conference abstracts, up to 27 June 2017. Randomized and quasi-randomized trials comparing smectite to a control group in children aged one month to 18 years old with acute infectious diarrhoea. Two review authors independently screened abstracts and the full texts for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Our primary outcomes were duration of diarrhoea and clinical resolution at day 3. We summarized continuous outcomes using mean differences (MD) and dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses and assessed heterogeneity. We explored publication bias using a funnel plot. Eighteen trials with 2616 children met our inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted in both ambulatory and in-hospital settings, and in both high-income and low- or middle-income countries. Most studies included children with rotavirus infections, and half included breastfed children.Smectite may reduce the duration of diarrhoea by approximately a day (MD -24.38 hours, 95% CI -30.91 to -17.85; 14 studies; 2209 children; low-certainty evidence); may increase clinical resolution at day 3 (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 1.30 to 3.39; 5 trials; 312 children; low-certainty evidence); and may reduce stool output (MD -11.37, 95% CI -21.94 to -0.79; 3 studies; 634 children; low-certainty evidence).We are uncertain whether smectite reduces stool frequency, measured as depositions per day (MD -1.33, 95% CI -2.28 to -0.38; 3 studies; 954 children; very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of an effect on need for hospitalization (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15; 2 studies; 885 children; low-certainty evidence) and need for intravenous rehydration (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.11; 1 study; 81 children; moderate-certainty evidence). The most frequently reported side effect was constipation, which did not differ between groups (RR 4.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 39.19; 2 studies; 128 children; low-certainty evidence). No deaths or serious adverse effects were reported. Based on low-certainty evidence, smectite used as an adjuvant to rehydration therapy may reduce the duration of diarrhoea in children with acute infectious diarrhoea by a day; may increase cure rate by day 3; and may reduce stool output, but has no effect on hospitalization rates or need for intravenous therapy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 23%
Librarian 3 23%
Student > Master 2 15%
Student > Postgraduate 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Other 3 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 46%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 23%
Unspecified 1 8%
Social Sciences 1 8%
Neuroscience 1 8%
Other 1 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 25 July 2018.
All research outputs
#914,186
of 12,100,779 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,516
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,971
of 258,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#25
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,100,779 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 258,465 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 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.