↓ 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

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 74 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 72 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 27%
Unspecified 11 15%
Researcher 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Other 15 20%
Unknown 1 1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 58%
Unspecified 13 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 1 1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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
#3,403,303
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,873
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,158
of 239,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#67
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
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 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 239,661 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.