↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
Cost-effectiveness analysis of dolutegravir plus backbone compared with raltegravir plus backbone, darunavir+ritonavir plus backbone and efavirenz/tenofovir/emtricitabine in treatment naïve and experienced HIV-positive patients
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, June 2017
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s135972
Pubmed ID
Authors

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 86 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 %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 20%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Researcher 9 10%
Other 7 8%
Unspecified 5 6%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 24 28%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 24%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 12%
Unspecified 5 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 28 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 16 December 2020.
All research outputs
#5,449,088
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#275
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,402
of 330,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#5
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. 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 330,503 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 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.