↓ 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 (95th 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
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 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 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 110 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 16%
Student > Bachelor 15 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Student > Postgraduate 9 8%
Other 9 8%
Other 31 28%
Unknown 17 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 8%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 20 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 December 2018.
All research outputs
#678,714
of 14,067,456 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,087
of 10,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,934
of 120,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,067,456 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 10,839 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.6. 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 120,857 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 124 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.