↓ Skip to main content

Clozapine versus typical neuroleptic medication for schizophrenia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 tweeters
weibo
1 weibo user
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
167 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
409 Mendeley
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
Clozapine versus typical neuroleptic medication for schizophrenia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2009
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000059.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adib Essali, Nahla Al-Haj Haasan, Chunbo Li, John Rathbone

Abstract

Long-term drug treatment of schizophrenia with typical antipsychotics has limitations: 25 to 33% of patients have illnesses that are treatment-resistant. Clozapine is an antipsychotic drug, which is claimed to have superior efficacy and to cause fewer motor adverse effects than typical drugs for people with treatment-resistant illnesses. Clozapine carries a significant risk of serious blood disorders, which necessitates mandatory weekly blood monitoring at least during the first months of treatment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 409 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 395 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 70 17%
Student > Master 65 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 11%
Student > Bachelor 46 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 32 8%
Other 103 25%
Unknown 46 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 160 39%
Psychology 59 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 21 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 4%
Other 60 15%
Unknown 65 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 07 September 2018.
All research outputs
#835,577
of 15,288,962 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,394
of 11,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,816
of 96,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#16
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,288,962 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,171 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 96,214 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.