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 |
The Value of Neuraminidase Inhibitors for the Prevention and Treatment of Seasonal Influenza: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0060348 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Barbara Michiels, Karolien Van Puyenbroeck, Veronique Verhoeven, Etienne Vermeire, Samuel Coenen |
| Abstract |
Controversy has arisen regarding the effectiveness of neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs), especially against influenza-related complications. A literature search was performed to critically assess the evidence collected by the available systematic reviews (SRs) regarding the benefits and disadvantages of NIs (oseltamivir, zanamivir) compared to placebos in healthy and at-risk individuals of all ages for prophylaxis and treatment of seasonal influenza. A SR was done using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Health Technology Assessment Database, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Medline (January 2006-July 2012). Two reviewers selected SRs based on randomized clinical trials, which were restricted to intention-to-treat results, and they assessed review (AMSTAR) and study quality indicators (GRADE). The SRs included (N = 9) were of high quality. The efficacy of NIs in prophylaxis ranged from 64% (16-85) to 92% (37-99); the absolute risk reduction ranged from 1.2% to 12.1% (GRADE moderate to low). Clinically relevant treatment benefits of NIs were small in healthy adults and children suffering from influenza-like illness (GRADE high to moderate). Oseltamivir reduced antibiotic usage in healthy adults according to one SR, but this was not confirmed by other reviews (GRADE low). Zanamivir showed a preventive effect on antibiotic usage in children (95% (77-99);GRADE moderate) and on the occurrence of bronchitis in at-risk individuals (59% (30-76);GRADE moderate). No evidence was available on the treatment benefits of NIs in elderly and at-risk groups and their effects on hospitalization and mortality. In oseltamivir trials, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea were significant side-effects. For zanamivir trials, no adverse effects have been reported. The combination of diagnostic uncertainty, the risk for virus strain resistance, possible side effects and financial cost outweigh the small benefits of oseltamivir or zanamivir for the prophylaxis and treatment of healthy individuals. No relevant benefits of these NIs on complications in at-risk individuals have been established. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Finland | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
| Japan | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 2% |
| Colombia | 2 | 1% |
| India | 2 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 162 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 35 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 27 | 15% |
| Researcher | 23 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 10% |
| Other | 12 | 7% |
| Other | 31 | 18% |
| Unknown | 29 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 59 | 34% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 20 | 11% |
| Chemistry | 10 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 34 | 19% |
| Unknown | 37 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 09 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,670,425
of 25,863,888 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#20,404
of 225,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,877
of 214,108 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#434
of 5,303 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,863,888 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 225,571 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 214,108 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,303 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 91% of its contemporaries.