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 |
Phyllanthus species versus antiviral drugs for chronic hepatitis B virus infection
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd009004.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yun Xia, Hui Luo, Jian Ping Liu, Christian Gluud |
| Abstract |
Phyllanthus species for patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection have been assessed in clinical trials, but no consensus regarding their usefulness exists. When compared with placebo or no intervention, we were unable to identify convincing evidence that phyllanthus species are beneficial in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Some randomised clinical trials have compared phyllanthus species versus antiviral drugs. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 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 | 138 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 13% |
| Researcher | 14 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 25 | 18% |
| Unknown | 41 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 42 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 9% |
| Psychology | 10 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 20 | 14% |
| Unknown | 48 | 34% |
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 03 January 2021.
All research outputs
#14,657,487
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,845
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,580
of 204,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#203
of 246 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 204,400 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 246 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.