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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Adverse effects of biologics: a network meta‐analysis and Cochrane overview
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008794.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jasvinder A Singh, George A Wells, Robin Christensen, Elizabeth Tanjong Ghogomu, Lara J Maxwell, John K MacDonald, Graziella Filippini, Nicole Skoetz, Damian K Francis, Luciane C Lopes, Gordon H Guyatt, Jochen Schmitt, Loredana La Mantia, Tobias Weberschock, Juliana F Roos, Hendrik Siebert, Sarah Hershan, Chris Cameron, Michael PT Lunn, Peter Tugwell, Rachelle Buchbinder |
| Abstract |
Biologics are used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many other conditions. While the efficacy of biologics has been established, there is uncertainty regarding the adverse effects of this treatment. Since serious risks such as tuberculosis (TB) reactivation, serious infections, and lymphomas may be common to the biologics but occur in small numbers across the various indications, we planned to combine the results from biologics used in many conditions to obtain the much needed risk estimates. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ecuador | 2 | 22% |
| Spain | 1 | 11% |
| Panama | 1 | 11% |
| Colombia | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 89% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 442 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 442 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 1% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 1% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | <1% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | <1% |
| Student > Master | 3 | <1% |
| Other | 3 | <1% |
| Unknown | 418 | 95% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | <1% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | <1% |
| Unspecified | 1 | <1% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 3 | <1% |
| Unknown | 419 | 95% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. 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 10 November 2023.
All research outputs
#849,411
of 25,655,374 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,632
of 13,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,844
of 118,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,655,374 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 118,978 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.