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 |
Beta‐lactam versus beta‐lactam‐aminoglycoside combination therapy in cancer patients with neutropenia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd003038.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mical Paul, Yaakov Dickstein, Agata Schlesinger, Simona Grozinsky‐Glasberg, Karla Soares‐Weiser, Leonard Leibovici |
| Abstract |
Continued controversy surrounds the optimal empirical treatment for febrile neutropenia. New broad-spectrum beta-lactams have been introduced as single treatment, and classically, a combination of a beta-lactam with an aminoglycoside has been used. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 | 2 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
| India | 1 | 10% |
| Kuwait | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 207 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 205 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 31 | 15% |
| Other | 26 | 13% |
| Researcher | 26 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 6% |
| Other | 28 | 14% |
| Unknown | 59 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 85 | 41% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 19 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 15 | 7% |
| Unknown | 67 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 10 May 2021.
All research outputs
#4,252,248
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,729
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,326
of 208,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#156
of 308 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 208,034 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 308 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.