↓ Skip to main content

Intravenous immunoglobulin for Guillain‐Barré syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2014
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 (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
42 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
321 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
598 Mendeley
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
Intravenous immunoglobulin for Guillain‐Barré syndrome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002063.pub6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard AC Hughes, Anthony V Swan, Pieter A van Doorn

Abstract

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute, paralysing, inflammatory peripheral nerve disease. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) is beneficial in other autoimmune diseases. This is an update of a review first published in 2001 and previously updated in 2003, 2005, 2007, 2010 and 2012. Other Cochrane systematic reviews have shown that plasma exchange (PE) significantly hastens recovery in GBS compared with supportive treatment alone, and that corticosteroids alone are ineffective.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 598 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Fiji 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 587 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 87 15%
Student > Master 79 13%
Researcher 66 11%
Other 60 10%
Student > Postgraduate 59 10%
Other 112 19%
Unknown 135 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 239 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 7%
Neuroscience 38 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 26 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 4%
Other 74 12%
Unknown 160 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 371. 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 11 May 2023.
All research outputs
#84,998
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#157
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#701
of 261,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2
of 206 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 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 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. 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 261,051 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 206 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.