| Title |
Oral vitamin B12 versus intramuscular vitamin B12 for vitamin B12 deficiency: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials*
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Family Practice, February 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1093/fampra/cml008 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher C Butler, Josep Vidal-Alaball, Rebecca Cannings-John, Andrew McCaddon, Kerenza Hood, Alexandra Papaioannou, Ian Mcdowell, Andrew Goringe |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 Kingdom | 2 | 17% |
| Japan | 2 | 17% |
| Canada | 1 | 8% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| United States | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 67% |
| Scientists | 2 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 218 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 2% |
| Egypt | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 210 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 51 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 28 | 13% |
| Researcher | 22 | 10% |
| Other | 20 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 19 | 9% |
| Other | 47 | 22% |
| Unknown | 31 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 103 | 47% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 17 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 13 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 20 | 9% |
| Unknown | 37 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 05 April 2024.
All research outputs
#1,496,752
of 25,651,057 outputs
Outputs from Family Practice
#115
of 2,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,797
of 171,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Family Practice
#1
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,651,057 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,265 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 171,520 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.