↓ Skip to main content

Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
20 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
130 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
276 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.
Title
Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008933.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Graziella Filippini, Cinzia Del Giovane, Laura Vacchi, Roberto D'Amico, Carlo Di Pietrantonj, Deirdre Beecher, Georgia Salanti

Abstract

Different therapeutic strategies are available for treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) including immunosuppressants, immunomodulators, and monoclonal antibodies. Their relative effectiveness in the prevention of relapse or disability progression is unclear due to the limited number of direct comparison trials. A summary of the results, including both direct and indirect comparisons of treatment effects, may help to clarify the above uncertainty.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 276 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 4 1%
Spain 3 1%
Portugal 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 260 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 53 19%
Student > Master 39 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 12%
Other 34 12%
Student > Bachelor 31 11%
Other 58 21%
Unknown 27 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 127 46%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 7%
Social Sciences 15 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 5%
Psychology 12 4%
Other 48 17%
Unknown 40 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 17 February 2020.
All research outputs
#675,882
of 15,827,240 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,830
of 11,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,126
of 157,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,827,240 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,293 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 157,894 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 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.