↓ Skip to main content

Light-emitting diode phototherapy for unconjugated hyperbilirubinaemia in neonates

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2011
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 (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 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
Light-emitting diode phototherapy for unconjugated hyperbilirubinaemia in neonates
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007969.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Praveen Kumar, Deepak Chawla, Ashok Deorari

Abstract

Phototherapy is the mainstay of treatment of neonatal hyperbilirubinaemia. The commonly used light sources for providing phototherapy are special blue fluorescent tubes, compact fluorescent tubes and halogen spotlights. However, light emitting diodes (LEDs) as light sources with high luminous intensity, narrow wavelength band and higher delivered irradiance could make phototherapy more efficacious than the conventional phototherapy units.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 1%
Latvia 1 1%
Ireland 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 74 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 17%
Student > Bachelor 13 17%
Student > Master 10 13%
Other 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Other 18 23%
Unknown 8 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 17%
Engineering 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 9 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 27 June 2016.
All research outputs
#725,801
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,236
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,437
of 217,437 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#117
of 450 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 217,437 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 450 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.