↓ Skip to main content

Optimum duration of regimens for Helicobacter pylori eradication

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
64 X users
facebook
7 Facebook pages
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
182 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
336 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
Optimum duration of regimens for <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> eradication
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008337.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yuhong Yuan, Alex C Ford, Khurram J Khan, Javier P Gisbert, David Forman, Grigorios I Leontiadis, Frances Tse, Xavier Calvet, Carlo Fallone, Lori Fischbach, Giuseppina Oderda, Franco Bazzoli, Paul Moayyedi

Abstract

The optimal duration for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication therapy is controversial, with recommendations ranging from 7 to 14 days. Several systematic reviews have attempted to address this issue but have given conflicting results and limited their analysis to proton pump inhibitor (PPI), two antibiotics (PPI triple) therapy. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimal duration of multiple H. pylori eradication regimens.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 64 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 336 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Guatemala 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 332 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 56 17%
Student > Master 42 13%
Other 29 9%
Researcher 25 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 7%
Other 72 21%
Unknown 87 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 139 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 18 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 3%
Other 37 11%
Unknown 105 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 56. 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 2023.
All research outputs
#755,166
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,407
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,718
of 320,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#27
of 207 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 97th 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 well, scoring higher than 88% 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 320,802 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 207 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.