↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Oral versus intravenous steroids for treatment of relapses in multiple sclerosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
12 Wikipedia pages
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
197 Mendeley
Title
Oral versus intravenous steroids for treatment of relapses in multiple sclerosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006921.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jodie M Burton, Paul W O'Connor, Marika Hohol, Joseph Beyene

Abstract

This is an updated Cochrane review of the previous version published (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD006921. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006921.pub2).Multiple sclerosis (MS), a chronic inflammatory and neurodegenerative disease of the central nervous system (CNS), is characterized by recurrent relapses of CNS inflammation ranging from mild to severely disabling.  Relapses have long been treated with steroids to reduce inflammation and hasten recovery.  However, the commonly used intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP) requires repeated infusions with the added costs of homecare or hospitalization, and may interfere with daily responsibilities. Oral steroids have been used in place of intravenous steroids, with lower direct and indirect costs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 197 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 194 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 14%
Student > Bachelor 26 13%
Researcher 22 11%
Other 17 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 9%
Other 22 11%
Unknown 65 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 5%
Psychology 9 5%
Neuroscience 7 4%
Other 22 11%
Unknown 75 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 17 August 2019.
All research outputs
#6,959,709
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,078
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,048
of 286,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#111
of 197 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 286,552 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 197 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.