| Title |
Retraction—Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Lancet, June 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31324-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mandeep R Mehra, Frank Ruschitzka, Amit N Patel |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34,008 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 States | 6237 | 18% |
| France | 1540 | 5% |
| Brazil | 1363 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 921 | 3% |
| India | 845 | 2% |
| Spain | 551 | 2% |
| Canada | 513 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 321 | <1% |
| Mexico | 280 | <1% |
| Other | 3696 | 11% |
| Unknown | 17741 | 52% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 30659 | 90% |
| Scientists | 1667 | 5% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1094 | 3% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 576 | 2% |
| Unknown | 12 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 329 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 329 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 47 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 39 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 28 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 23 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 7% |
| Other | 97 | 29% |
| Unknown | 73 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 103 | 31% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 26 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 16 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 4% |
| Engineering | 9 | 3% |
| Other | 68 | 21% |
| Unknown | 93 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18464. 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 19 April 2024.
All research outputs
#37
of 25,782,917 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#6
of 42,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6
of 434,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#3
of 381 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,782,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 42,994 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 68.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 434,103 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 381 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 99% of its contemporaries.