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 |
Bendamustine plus rituximab versus CHOP plus rituximab as first-line treatment for patients with indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 non-inferiority trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Lancet, February 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1016/s0140-6736(12)61763-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mathias J Rummel, Norbert Niederle, Georg Maschmeyer, G Andre Banat, Ulrich von Grünhagen, Christoph Losem, Dorothea Kofahl-Krause, Gerhard Heil, Manfred Welslau, Christina Balser, Ulrich Kaiser, Eckhart Weidmann, Heinz Dürk, Harald Ballo, Martina Stauch, Fritz Roller, Juergen Barth, Dieter Hoelzer, Axel Hinke, Wolfram Brugger, on behalf of the Study group indolent Lymphomas |
| Abstract |
Rituximab plus chemotherapy, most often CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), is the first-line standard of care for patients with advanced indolent lymphoma, and for elderly patients with mantle-cell lymphoma. Bendamustine plus rituximab is effective for relapsed or refractory disease. We compared bendamustine plus rituximab with CHOP plus rituximab (R-CHOP) as first-line treatment for patients with indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 | 7 | 24% |
| Spain | 2 | 7% |
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Argentina | 1 | 3% |
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| Turkey | 1 | 3% |
| France | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 15 | 52% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 23 | 79% |
| Scientists | 4 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 711 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| Ecuador | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | <1% |
| Unknown | 694 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 132 | 19% |
| Other | 120 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 61 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 50 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 47 | 7% |
| Other | 160 | 23% |
| Unknown | 141 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 427 | 60% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 26 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 24 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 21 | 3% |
| Chemistry | 8 | 1% |
| Other | 37 | 5% |
| Unknown | 168 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 97. 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 09 January 2024.
All research outputs
#441,464
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#4,256
of 43,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,790
of 208,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#35
of 512 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 43,155 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 67.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 208,319 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 512 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 93% of its contemporaries.