| Title |
RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Lancet, May 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31180-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mandeep R Mehra, Sapan S Desai, Frank Ruschitzka, Amit N Patel |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25,279 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 3004 | 12% |
| United States | 2417 | 10% |
| Brazil | 995 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 573 | 2% |
| Spain | 399 | 2% |
| Canada | 355 | 1% |
| Mexico | 350 | 1% |
| Japan | 343 | 1% |
| Australia | 245 | <1% |
| Other | 3028 | 12% |
| Unknown | 13570 | 54% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 22965 | 91% |
| Scientists | 1208 | 5% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 777 | 3% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 302 | 1% |
| Unknown | 27 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,984 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1984 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 251 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 234 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 182 | 9% |
| Other | 164 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 144 | 7% |
| Other | 469 | 24% |
| Unknown | 540 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 616 | 31% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 122 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 118 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 73 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 61 | 3% |
| Other | 325 | 16% |
| Unknown | 669 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21976. 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 25 April 2024.
All research outputs
#23
of 25,793,330 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#4
of 42,997 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4
of 426,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#2
of 379 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,793,330 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 42,997 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 68.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 426,367 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 379 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 99% of its contemporaries.