↓ Skip to main content

Extracorporeal photopheresis versus alternative treatment for chronic graft-versus-host disease after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in paediatric patients.

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Extracorporeal photopheresis versus alternative treatment for chronic graft-versus-host disease after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in paediatric patients.
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009898.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Weitz M, Strahm B, Meerpohl JJ, Bassler D, Weitz, Marcus, Strahm, Brigitte, Meerpohl, Joerg J, Bassler, Dirk

Abstract

Chronic graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation occurring in 6% to 65% of the recipients. Currently, the therapeutic mainstay for chronic GvHD are corticosteroids that are frequently combined with other immunosuppressive agents in people with steroid-refractory manifestations. There is no established standard treatment for steroid-refractory chronic GvHD. The therapeutic options in these people include extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP), an immunomodulatory treatment that involves ex vivo collection of mononuclear cells from peripheral blood, exposure to the photoactive agent 8-methoxypsoralen, ultraviolet radiation and re-infusion of the processed cell product. The mechanisms of action of ECP are not completely understood.

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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 40%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 47%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Unknown 3 20%

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 08 July 2014.
All research outputs
#3,014,525
of 12,100,779 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,108
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,658
of 199,473 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#97
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,100,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 199,473 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.