| Title |
The efficacy of dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine and artemether-lumefantrine with and without primaquine on Plasmodium vivax recurrence: A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS Medicine, October 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002928 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robert J. Commons, Julie A. Simpson, Kamala Thriemer, Tesfay Abreha, Ishag Adam, Nicholas M. Anstey, Ashenafi Assefa, Ghulam R. Awab, J. Kevin Baird, Bridget E. Barber, Cindy S. Chu, Prabin Dahal, André Daher, Timothy M. E. Davis, Arjen M. Dondorp, Matthew J. Grigg, Georgina S. Humphreys, Jimee Hwang, Harin Karunajeewa, Moses Laman, Kartini Lidia, Brioni R. Moore, Ivo Mueller, Francois Nosten, Ayodhia P. Pasaribu, Dhelio B. Pereira, Aung P. Phyo, Jeanne R. Poespoprodjo, Carol H. Sibley, Kasia Stepniewska, Inge Sutanto, Guy Thwaites, Tran T. Hien, Nicholas J. White, Timothy William, Charles J. Woodrow, Philippe J. Guerin, Ric N. Price |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 | 6 | 25% |
| Australia | 4 | 17% |
| India | 1 | 4% |
| Cameroon | 1 | 4% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 4% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 4% |
| Thailand | 1 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 8 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 58% |
| Scientists | 6 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 130 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 9% |
| Researcher | 12 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 9% |
| Other | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 24 | 18% |
| Unknown | 46 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 16 | 12% |
| Unknown | 55 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 06 February 2020.
All research outputs
#2,694,849
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from PLOS Medicine
#2,885
of 5,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,195
of 363,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS Medicine
#52
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,161 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 77.7. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 363,385 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.