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 |
Nivolumab versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
New England Journal of Medicine, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1056/nejmoa1510665 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robert J Motzer, Bernard Escudier, David F McDermott, Saby George, Hans J Hammers, Sandhya Srinivas, Scott S Tykodi, Jeffrey A Sosman, Giuseppe Procopio, Elizabeth R Plimack, Daniel Castellano, Toni K Choueiri, Howard Gurney, Frede Donskov, Petri Bono, John Wagstaff, Thomas C Gauler, Takeshi Ueda, Yoshihiko Tomita, Fabio A Schutz, Christian Kollmannsberger, James Larkin, Alain Ravaud, Jason S Simon, Li-An Xu, Ian M Waxman, Padmanee Sharma |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 240 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 | 62 | 26% |
| Spain | 18 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 14 | 6% |
| Canada | 10 | 4% |
| France | 8 | 3% |
| Brazil | 5 | 2% |
| Colombia | 3 | 1% |
| Mexico | 3 | 1% |
| Germany | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 22 | 9% |
| Unknown | 92 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 149 | 62% |
| Scientists | 46 | 19% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 41 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 2,071 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 3 | <1% |
| Spain | 3 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 6 | <1% |
| Unknown | 2046 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 359 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 248 | 12% |
| Other | 217 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 165 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 162 | 8% |
| Other | 430 | 21% |
| Unknown | 490 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 828 | 40% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 202 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 126 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 88 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 71 | 3% |
| Other | 175 | 8% |
| Unknown | 581 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 614. 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 26 March 2024.
All research outputs
#37,318
of 25,734,859 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#1,369
of 32,654 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#371
of 287,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#13
of 400 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,734,859 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 32,654 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 122.7. 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 287,016 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 400 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 96% of its contemporaries.