↓ Skip to main content

Pharmacological treatment for memory disorder in multiple sclerosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 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 (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
168 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
Pharmacological treatment for memory disorder in multiple sclerosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008876.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dian He, Yun Zhang, Shuai Dong, Dongfeng Wang, Xiangdong Gao, Hongyu Zhou

Abstract

This is an update of the Cochrane review "Pharmacologic treatment for memory disorder in multiple sclerosis" (first published in The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 10).Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic immune-mediated, inflammatory, demyelinating, neurodegenerative disorder of the central nervous system (CNS) and can cause both neurological and neuropsychological disability. Both demyelination and axonal and neuronal loss are believed to contribute to MS-related cognitive impairment. Memory disorder is one of the most frequent cognitive dysfunctions and presents a considerable burden to people with MS and to society due to the negative impact on function. A number of pharmacological agents have been evaluated in many existing randomised controlled trials for their efficacy on memory disorder in people with MS but the results were not consistent.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 163 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 17%
Unspecified 25 15%
Student > Bachelor 19 11%
Researcher 19 11%
Other 43 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 39%
Unspecified 36 21%
Psychology 17 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 5%
Other 27 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 08 September 2016.
All research outputs
#1,015,621
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,046
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,678
of 242,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#55
of 139 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 242,790 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 139 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.