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 |
Lamivudine plus tenofovir combination therapy versus lamivudine monotherapy for HBV/HIV coinfection: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Virology Journal, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12985-018-1050-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aoran Luo, Xiaoyan Jiang, Hong Ren |
| Abstract |
Currently, there is no consensus on the efficacy and safety of lamivudine (LAM) plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) combination therapy versus lamivudine monotherapy in HBV/HIV coinfected patients. A comprehensive literature search was performed in English and Chinese databases. Both relevant dichotomous and continuous variables were extracted, and the combined outcomes were expressed as a risk ratio (RR) or a standard mean difference (SMD). Eleven eligible studies were included in our analysis. For HBV-relevant outcomes, the proportion of patients with undetectable HBV, the rates of serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) normalization and hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) loss were higher in the combination therapy group than the monotherapy group (RR = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.14-1.76, P = 0.002; RR = 1.36, 95% CI: 1.17-1.58, P < 0.0001; RR = 2.74, 95% CI: 1.20-6.22, P = 0.02). In addition, the rate of HIV RNA-negative conversion was higher in the combination therapy group than the monotherapy group (RR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.11-1.42, P = 0.0003). LAM plus TDF combination therapy was more efficacious than LAM monotherapy in HBV/HIV coinfected patients. As time passes, this difference becomes more pronounced. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 14 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 21% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 15 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 24 September 2018.
All research outputs
#14,140,033
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from Virology Journal
#1,500
of 3,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,280
of 337,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Virology Journal
#13
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,071 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.8. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 337,287 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 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 71% of its contemporaries.