↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Beta-lactam versus beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy in cancer patients with neutropenia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
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 (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

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

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 Mendeley
Title
Beta-lactam versus beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy in cancer patients with neutropenia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003038.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mical Paul, Yaakov Dickstein, Agata Schlesinger, Simona Grozinsky-Glasberg, Karla Soares-Weiser, Leonard Leibovici

Abstract

Continued controversy surrounds the optimal empirical treatment for febrile neutropenia. New broad-spectrum beta-lactams have been introduced as single treatment, and classically, a combination of a beta-lactam with an aminoglycoside has been used.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 148 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 146 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 20%
Researcher 21 14%
Other 21 14%
Student > Bachelor 17 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 5%
Other 24 16%
Unknown 28 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 47%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 16 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 34 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 10 May 2021.
All research outputs
#2,120,177
of 17,727,194 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,779
of 11,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,498
of 164,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#49
of 155 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,727,194 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,741 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 164,930 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 155 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 69% of its contemporaries.