↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

First‐line tandem high‐dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation versus single high‐dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma, a systematic…

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
183 Mendeley
Title
First‐line tandem high‐dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation versus single high‐dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma, a systematic review of controlled studies
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004626.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frauke Naumann‐Winter, Alexander Greb, Peter Borchmann, Julia Bohlius, Andreas Engert, Roland Schnell

Abstract

Several clinical studies have compared single with tandem (also called double) autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) as first-line treatment in patients with symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM), one of the leading indications for ASCT worldwide.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 183 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 180 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 14%
Student > Bachelor 21 11%
Researcher 19 10%
Other 18 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 10%
Other 24 13%
Unknown 57 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 74 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 5%
Psychology 9 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 62 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 February 2022.
All research outputs
#7,077,903
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,276
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,234
of 193,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#156
of 244 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 193,432 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 244 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.