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 |
Vigabatrin versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008781.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xiao Y, Gan L, Wang J, Luo M, Luo H |
| Abstract |
The efficacy and safety of vigabatrin (VGB) as an add-on therapy for refractory epilepsy has been well established. However, this needs to be weighed against the risk of the development of visual field defects. Whether VGB monotherapy is an effective and safe treatment compared with the standard antiepileptic drug carbamazepine (CBZ) monotherapy for epilepsy has not been systematically reviewed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 33% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 27% |
| Researcher | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 27% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 20% |
| Psychology | 2 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 January 2012.
All research outputs
#18,304,230
of 22,662,201 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11,413
of 12,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,449
of 246,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#207
of 234 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,662,201 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 246,166 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 234 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.