| Title |
Amoxicillin for acute lower respiratory tract infection in primary care: subgroup analysis of potential high-risk groups
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Journal of General Practice, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3399/bjgp14x677121 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael Moore, Beth Stuart, Samuel Coenen, Chris C Butler, Herman Goossens, Theo JM Verheij, Paul Little |
| Abstract |
Antibiotics are of limited overall clinical benefit for uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) but there is uncertainty about their effectiveness for patients with features associated with higher levels of antibiotic prescribing. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 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 Kingdom | 17 | 33% |
| South Africa | 6 | 12% |
| Spain | 2 | 4% |
| United States | 2 | 4% |
| Australia | 2 | 4% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Kenya | 1 | 2% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 16 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 32 | 63% |
| Scientists | 10 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Belgium | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 87 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 11% |
| Researcher | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 17 | 19% |
| Unknown | 22 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Unknown | 23 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 02 July 2020.
All research outputs
#1,116,734
of 24,605,383 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#516
of 4,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,657
of 318,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#5
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,605,383 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 318,436 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 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 92% of its contemporaries.