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 |
Efficacy and tolerability of peg-only laxative on faecal impaction and chronic constipation in children. A controlled double blind randomized study vs a standard peg-electrolyte laxative
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Pediatrics, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2431-12-178 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Francesco Savino, Serena Viola, Maiullari Erasmo, Giovanni Di Nardo, Salvatore Oliva, Salvatore Cucchiara |
| Abstract |
PEG-based laxatives are considered today the gold standard for the treatment of constipation in children. PEG formulations differ in terms of composition of inactive ingredients which may have an impact on acceptance, compliance and adherence to treatment. We therefore compared the efficacy, tolerability, acceptance and compliance of a new PEG-only formulation compared to a reference PEG-electrolyte (PEG-EL) formulation in resolving faecal impaction and in the treatment of chronic constipation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 77 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 16% |
| Unspecified | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 16 | 21% |
| Unknown | 16 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 36% |
| Unspecified | 11 | 14% |
| Psychology | 5 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 19 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 04 April 2022.
All research outputs
#3,054,236
of 23,482,849 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#466
of 3,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,810
of 180,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#10
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,482,849 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,114 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 180,683 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 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 68% of its contemporaries.