↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for atrophic rhinitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Interventions for atrophic rhinitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008280.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anupam Mishra, Rahul Kawatra, Manoj Gola

Abstract

Atrophic rhinitis is a chronic nasal pathology characterised by the formation of thick dry crusts in a roomy nasal cavity, which has resulted from progressive atrophy of the nasal mucosa and underlying bone. The common symptoms may include foetor, ozaena, crusting/nasal obstruction, epistaxis, anosmia/cacosmia and secondary infection with maggot infestation. Its prevalence varies in different regions of the world and it is common in tropical countries. The condition is predominantly seen in young and middle-aged adults, especially females, with a racial preference amongst Asians, Hispanics and African-Americans. A wide variety of treatment modalities have been described in the literature, however the mainstay of treatment is conservative (for example, nasal irrigation and douches; nose drops (e.g. glucose-glycerine, liquid paraffin); antibiotics and antimicrobials; vasodilators and prostheses). Surgical treatment aims to decrease the size of the nasal cavities, promote regeneration of normal mucosa, increase lubrication of dry nasal mucosa and improve the vascularity of the nasal cavities.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 3%
Ireland 1 2%
Unknown 59 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 19%
Other 8 13%
Researcher 8 13%
Unspecified 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Other 20 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 71%
Unspecified 10 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 4 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 May 2016.
All research outputs
#9,618,847
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,230
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,823
of 117,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#102
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 117,284 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 120 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.