The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
Title |
Antibiotic regimens for the empirical treatment of newborn infants with necrotising enterocolitis
|
---|---|
Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2012
|
DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd007448.pub2 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Dharmesh Shah, John KH Sinn |
Abstract |
Although the exact aetiology of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) remains unknown, research suggests that it is multifactorial; suspected pathophysiological mechanisms include immaturity, intestinal ischaemia, disruption of intestinal mucosal integrity, formula feeding, hyperosmolar load to the intestine, infection and bacterial translocation. Various antibiotic regimens have been widely used in the treatment of NEC. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Ecuador | 1 | 33% |
Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
India | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 152 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 18 | 12% |
Student > Master | 15 | 10% |
Student > Bachelor | 14 | 9% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 8% |
Other | 12 | 8% |
Other | 28 | 18% |
Unknown | 54 | 35% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 65 | 42% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 7% |
Social Sciences | 5 | 3% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 3% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 3% |
Other | 8 | 5% |
Unknown | 57 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 12 November 2015.
All research outputs
#2,545,177
of 26,442,002 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,956
of 13,227 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,049
of 188,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#77
of 211 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,442,002 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,227 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 188,111 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 211 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 63% of its contemporaries.