↓ Skip to main content

Antibody induction therapy for lung transplant recipients

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
157 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
Antibody induction therapy for lung transplant recipients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008927.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luit Penninga, Christian H Møller, Elisabeth I Penninga, Martin Iversen, Christian Gluud, Daniel A Steinbrüchel

Abstract

Lung transplantation has become a valuable and well-accepted treatment option for most end-stage lung diseases. Lung transplant recipients are at risk of transplanted organ rejection, and life-long immunosuppression is necessary. Clear evidence is essential to identify an optimal, safe and effective immunosuppressive treatment strategy for lung transplant recipients. Consensus has not yet been achieved concerning use of immunosuppressive antibodies against T-cells for induction following lung transplantation.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 155 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 17%
Student > Bachelor 22 14%
Other 14 9%
Researcher 12 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 6%
Other 27 17%
Unknown 46 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Psychology 4 3%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Other 16 10%
Unknown 50 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 January 2014.
All research outputs
#8,572,103
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,245
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,198
of 320,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#184
of 241 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. 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 320,398 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 241 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.