↓ Skip to main content

Honey and lozenges for children with non-specific cough

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2009
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 (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Honey and lozenges for children with non-specific cough
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2009
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007523.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Selamawit Mulholland, Anne B Chang

Abstract

Chronic non-specific cough is a chronic, dry cough of in the absence of identifiable respiratory disease or known aetiology. Although it is usually not reflective of an underlying severe illness, it does cause significant morbidity, and as such relief from it is often sought. The use of honey and lozenges to soothe upper respiratory tract irritation is common, inexpensive, and potentially more effective in treating the symptoms than pharmacological interventions.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Egypt 1 2%
Unknown 38 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 24%
Student > Master 7 17%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Researcher 4 10%
Other 3 7%
Other 13 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 61%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Unspecified 2 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 6 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 16 December 2016.
All research outputs
#1,401,325
of 13,272,830 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,995
of 10,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,644
of 211,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#201
of 539 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,272,830 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,546 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 211,815 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 539 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 62% of its contemporaries.