↓ Skip to main content

Fluids and diuretics for acute ureteric colic

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Fluids and diuretics for acute ureteric colic
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004926.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew S Worster, Wendy Bhanich Supapol

Abstract

Acute ureteric colic is commonly associated with severe and debilitating pain. Theoretically, increasing fluid flow through the affected kidney might expedite stone passage, thereby improving symptoms more quickly. The efficacy and safety of interventions such as high volume intravenous (IV) or oral fluids and diuretics aimed at expediting ureteric stone passage is, however, uncertain.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 124 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 17%
Student > Bachelor 16 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Researcher 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 32 26%
Unknown 21 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 12%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 26 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 October 2019.
All research outputs
#850,834
of 17,360,236 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,218
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,122
of 130,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,360,236 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 130,326 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.