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 |
Interferons-beta versus glatiramer acetate for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd009333.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
La Mantia L, Di Pietrantonj C, Rovaris M, Rigon G, Frau S, Berardo F, Gandini A, Longobardi A, Weinstock-Guttman B, Vaona A |
| Abstract |
Interferons (IFNs)-beta and glatiramer acetate (GA) were the first two disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) approved 15 years ago for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). DMTs prescription rates as first or switching therapies and their costs have increased substantially over the past decade. As more DMTs become available, the choice of a specific DMT should reflect the risk/benefit profile, as well as the impact on quality profile. As MS cohorts enrolled in different studies can vary significantly, head-to-head trials are considered the best approach for gaining objective reliable data when two different drugs are compared. The purpose of this study is to summarise available evidence on the comparative effectiveness of IFNs-beta and GA on disease course through a systematic review of head-to-head trials. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Turkey | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 107 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 21 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 15% |
| Other | 14 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 21 | 19% |
| Unknown | 21 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 53 | 47% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 6% |
| Psychology | 7 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Unknown | 28 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 02 April 2015.
All research outputs
#1,828,334
of 24,387,992 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,077
of 12,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,430
of 233,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#77
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,387,992 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,904 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 233,391 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.