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 |
Primum non nocere – Are chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine safe prophylactic/treatment options for SARS-CoV-2 (covid-19)?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Revista de Saúde Pública, July 2020
|
| DOI | 10.11606/s1518-8787.2020054002631 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claudia Biguetti, Mauro Toledo Marrelli, Marco Brotto |
| Abstract |
Chloroquine (CQ) and its analog hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) were recently included in several clinical trials as potential prophylactic and therapeutic options for SARS-COV-2 infection/covid-19. However, drug effectiveness in preventing, treating, or slowing the progression of the disease is still unknown. Despite some initial promising in vitro results, rigorous pre-clinical animal studies and randomized clinical trials have not been performed yet. On the other hand, while the potential effectiveness of CQ/HCQ is, at best, hypothetical, their side effects are factual and most worrisome, particularly when considering vulnerable groups of patients being treated with these drugs. in this comment, we briefly explain the possible mechanisms of action of CQ/HCQ for treating other diseases, possible actions against covid-19, and their potent side effects, in order to reinforce the necessity of evaluating the benefit-risk balance when widely prescribing these drugs for SARS-COV-2 infection/covid-19. We conclude by strongly recommending against their indiscriminate use. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 3 | 43% |
| Unknown | 4 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 89 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 19% |
| Researcher | 11 | 12% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 18 | 20% |
| Unknown | 27 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 26% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 4% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 17% |
| Unknown | 31 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 28 September 2023.
All research outputs
#5,571,192
of 25,810,956 outputs
Outputs from Revista de Saúde Pública
#162
of 1,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,504
of 433,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista de Saúde Pública
#4
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,810,956 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,153 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 433,173 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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.