↓ Skip to main content

Desferrioxamine mesylate for managing transfusional iron overload in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
178 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
Desferrioxamine mesylate for managing transfusional iron overload in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004450.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sheila A Fisher, Susan J Brunskill, Carolyn Doree, Sarah Gooding, Onima Chowdhury, David J Roberts

Abstract

Thalassaemia major is a genetic disease characterised by a reduced ability to produce haemoglobin. Management of the resulting anaemia is through red blood cell transfusions.Repeated transfusions result in an excessive accumulation of iron in the body (iron overload), removal of which is achieved through iron chelation therapy. Desferrioxamine mesylate (desferrioxamine) is one of the most widely used iron chelators. Substantial data have shown the beneficial effects of desferrioxamine, although adherence to desferrioxamine therapy is a challenge. Alternative oral iron chelators, deferiprone and deferasirox, are now commonly used. Important questions exist about whether desferrioxamine, as monotherapy or in combination with an oral iron chelator, is the best treatment for iron chelation therapy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Germany 2 1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 172 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 21%
Researcher 27 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 11%
Student > Bachelor 18 10%
Other 37 21%
Unknown 17 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 10%
Psychology 11 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 4%
Other 30 17%
Unknown 26 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 February 2014.
All research outputs
#7,554,545
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,699
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,913
of 154,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#86
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 154,761 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.