↓ Skip to main content

Routine neonatal circumcision for the prevention of urinary tract infections in infancy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2012
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
20 tweeters
facebook
12 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Routine neonatal circumcision for the prevention of urinary tract infections in infancy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009129.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vanitha A Jagannath, Zbys Fedorowicz, Vikas Sud, Abhishek Kumar Verma, Sakineh Hajebrahimi

Abstract

Neonatal circumcision is a fairly common surgical procedure that may be carried out for medical reasons, one of them being prevention of urinary tract infections (UTI) in male infants. Circumcision could help in reducing the incidence of UTI by reducing periurethral bacterial colonization, which is accepted as a potential risk factor in UTI. Evidence is needed to inform the benefits or harm for the routine use of this intervention.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Macao 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 41 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 28%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 12%
Unspecified 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Researcher 4 9%
Other 14 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 65%
Unspecified 6 14%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Psychology 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 3 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 18 August 2019.
All research outputs
#684,890
of 13,614,931 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,152
of 10,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,695
of 126,936 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,614,931 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 10,678 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 126,936 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 107 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 91% of its contemporaries.