↓ Skip to main content

Beta-lactam versus beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy in cancer patients with neutropenia

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 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
Beta-lactam versus beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy in cancer patients with neutropenia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003038.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mical Paul, Yaakov Dickstein, Agata Schlesinger, Simona Grozinsky-Glasberg, Karla Soares-Weiser, Leonard Leibovici

Abstract

Continued controversy surrounds the optimal empirical treatment for febrile neutropenia. New broad-spectrum beta-lactams have been introduced as single treatment, and classically, a combination of a beta-lactam with an aminoglycoside has been used.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 92 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 20%
Researcher 17 18%
Other 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Unspecified 11 12%
Other 20 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 56%
Unspecified 16 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 8 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 20 February 2019.
All research outputs
#2,304,468
of 13,390,335 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,050
of 10,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,279
of 152,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#59
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,390,335 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,579 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 152,626 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.