| Title |
Antibody induction therapy for lung transplant recipients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008927.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Luit Penninga, Christian H Møller, Elisabeth I Penninga, Martin Iversen, Christian Gluud, Daniel A Steinbrüchel |
| Abstract |
Lung transplantation has become a valuable and well-accepted treatment option for most end-stage lung diseases. Lung transplant recipients are at risk of transplanted organ rejection, and life-long immunosuppression is necessary. Clear evidence is essential to identify an optimal, safe and effective immunosuppressive treatment strategy for lung transplant recipients. Consensus has not yet been achieved concerning use of immunosuppressive antibodies against T-cells for induction following lung transplantation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 1 | 20% |
| Australia | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 157 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 27 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 14% |
| Other | 14 | 9% |
| Researcher | 12 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 25 | 16% |
| Unknown | 49 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 69 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Psychology | 4 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 9% |
| Unknown | 53 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 17 January 2014.
All research outputs
#8,779,278
of 25,972,223 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,735
of 13,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,272
of 322,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#181
of 238 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,972,223 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,170 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 322,565 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 238 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.