↓ Skip to main content

Advances in prevention and therapy of neonatal dairy calf diarrhoea: a systematical review with emphasis on colostrum management and fluid therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
104 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
301 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
Advances in prevention and therapy of neonatal dairy calf diarrhoea: a systematical review with emphasis on colostrum management and fluid therapy
Published in
Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13028-014-0075-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vanessa Meganck, Geert Hoflack, Geert Opsomer

Abstract

Neonatal calf diarrhoea remains the most common cause of morbidity and mortality in preweaned dairy calves worldwide. This complex disease can be triggered by both infectious and non-infectious causes. The four most important enteropathogens leading to neonatal dairy calf diarrhoea are Escherichia coli, rota- and coronavirus, and Cryptosporidium parvum. Besides treating diarrhoeic neonatal dairy calves, the veterinarian is the most obvious person to advise the dairy farmer on prevention and treatment of this disease. This review deals with prevention and treatment of neonatal dairy calf diarrhoea focusing on the importance of a good colostrum management and a correct fluid therapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 301 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 297 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 47 16%
Student > Bachelor 33 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 9%
Researcher 24 8%
Student > Postgraduate 23 8%
Other 59 20%
Unknown 89 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 90 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 63 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 1%
Other 17 6%
Unknown 97 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 March 2015.
All research outputs
#15,739,010
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica
#360
of 837 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,006
of 369,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica
#7
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 837 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 369,530 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 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 58% of its contemporaries.