↓ Skip to main content

Adverse effects of biologics: a network meta-analysis and Cochrane overview

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
510 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
434 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 434 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 4 <1%
Brazil 3 <1%
United States 3 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Other 9 2%
Unknown 403 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 87 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 56 13%
Student > Master 50 12%
Other 49 11%
Student > Bachelor 47 11%
Other 144 33%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 247 57%
Unspecified 51 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 40 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 17 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 3%
Other 63 15%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 20 September 2019.
All research outputs
#589,209
of 13,647,320 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,837
of 10,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,800
of 69,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,647,320 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,695 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 69,517 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.