↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Phyllanthus species versus antiviral drugs for chronic hepatitis B virus infection

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
Title
Phyllanthus species versus antiviral drugs for chronic hepatitis B virus infection
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009004.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yun Xia, Hui Luo, Jian Ping Liu, Christian Gluud

Abstract

Phyllanthus species for patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection have been assessed in clinical trials, but no consensus regarding their usefulness exists. When compared with placebo or no intervention, we were unable to identify convincing evidence that phyllanthus species are beneficial in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Some randomised clinical trials have compared phyllanthus species versus antiviral drugs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 88 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 16%
Student > Master 14 16%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Postgraduate 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Other 19 21%
Unknown 15 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Psychology 8 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 19 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 03 January 2021.
All research outputs
#4,281,645
of 17,362,547 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,645
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,445
of 162,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#56
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,362,547 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 162,143 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 122 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 54% of its contemporaries.