↓ Skip to main content

Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in healthy adults: systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in British Medical Journal, December 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
15 blogs
twitter
33 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
243 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
271 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
connotea
6 Connotea
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
Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in healthy adults: systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
British Medical Journal, December 2009
DOI 10.1136/bmj.b5106
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tom Jefferson, Mark Jones, Peter Doshi, Chris Del Mar

Abstract

To update a 2005 Cochrane review that assessed the effects of neuraminidase inhibitors in preventing or ameliorating the symptoms of influenza, the transmission of influenza, and complications from influenza in healthy adults, and to estimate the frequency of adverse effects. Search strategy An updated search of the Cochrane central register of controlled trials (Cochrane Library 2009, issue 2), which contains the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's specialised register, Medline (1950-Aug 2009), Embase (1980-Aug 2009), and post-marketing pharmacovigilance data and comparative safety cohorts. Selection criteria Randomised placebo controlled studies of neuraminidase inhibitors in otherwise healthy adults exposed to naturally occurring influenza.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 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 271 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 9 3%
France 3 1%
Japan 3 1%
United States 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
Other 12 4%
Unknown 234 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 50 18%
Other 37 14%
Student > Master 26 10%
Student > Bachelor 25 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 22 8%
Other 87 32%
Unknown 24 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 154 57%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 3%
Other 40 15%
Unknown 30 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 174. 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 06 May 2021.
All research outputs
#231,992
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from British Medical Journal
#3,080
of 64,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#721
of 176,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Medical Journal
#5
of 211 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 64,480 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 176,271 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 99% 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.