↓ Skip to main content

Oral vitamin B12 versus intramuscular vitamin B12 for vitamin B12 deficiency

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2005
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
27 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
47 Google+ users
video
2 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
144 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
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
Oral vitamin B12 versus intramuscular vitamin B12 for vitamin B12 deficiency
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2005
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004655.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Josep Vidal-Alaball, Christopher Butler, Rebecca Cannings-John, Andrew Goringe, Kerry Hood, Andrew McCaddon, Ian McDowell, Alexandra Papaioannou

Abstract

Vitamin B12 deficiency is common and rises with age. Most people with vitamin B12 deficiency are treated in primary care with intramuscular vitamin B12 which is a considerable source of work for health care professionals. Several case control and case series studies have reported equal efficacy of oral administration of vitamin B12 but it is rarely prescribed in this form, other than in Sweden and Canada. Doctors may not be prescribing oral formulations because they are unaware of this option or have concerns regarding effectiveness.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
United States 2 1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Zimbabwe 1 <1%
Unknown 161 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 22%
Student > Bachelor 29 17%
Researcher 20 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 10%
Other 16 9%
Other 36 21%
Unknown 15 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 81 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 4%
Other 21 12%
Unknown 21 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 102. 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 August 2019.
All research outputs
#163,480
of 13,865,625 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#359
of 10,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#749
of 91,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,865,625 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,737 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 91,879 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 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 95% of its contemporaries.