↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
patent
5 patents
guideline
1 clinical guideline source

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
Analysis of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Drug Resistance in Children Receiving Nucleoside Analogue Reverse-Transcriptase Inhibitors plus Nevirapine, Nelfinavir, or Ritonavir (Pediatric AIDS Clinical Trials Group 377)
Published in
Journal of Infectious Diseases, May 2001
DOI 10.1086/320728
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

In Pediatric AIDS Clinical Trials Group 377, antiretroviral therapy-experienced children were randomized to 4 treatment arms that included different combinations of stavudine, lamivudine (3TC), nevirapine (Nvp), nelfinavir (Nfv), and ritonavir (Rtv). Previous treatment with zidovudine (Zdv), didanosine (ddI), or zalcitabine (ddC) was acceptable. Drug resistance mutations were assessed before study treatment (baseline) and at virologic failure. Zdv, ddI, and ddC mutations were detected frequently at baseline but were not associated with virologic failure. Children with drug resistance mutations at baseline had greater reductions in virus load over time than did children who did not. Nvp and 3TC mutations were detected frequently at virologic failure, and Nvp mutations were more common among children receiving 3-drug versus 4-drug Nvp-containing regimens. Children who were maintained on their study regimen after virologic failure accumulated additional Nvp and 3TC mutations plus Rtv and Nfv mutations. However, Rtv and Nfv mutations were detected at unexpectedly low rates.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Uganda 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Belgium 1 2%
Unknown 41 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 14%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Professor 4 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 9%
Other 11 25%
Unknown 8 18%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 48%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 8 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 04 May 2015.
All research outputs
#3,783,433
of 34,410,798 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Infectious Diseases
#3,676
of 18,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,032
of 62,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Infectious Diseases
#10
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,798 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 18,995 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 62,262 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.