↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Olanzapine versus other atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2010
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 (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
weibo
1 weibo user
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
199 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
468 Mendeley
Title
Olanzapine versus other atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006654.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katja Komossa, Christine Rummel‐Kluge, Heike Hunger, Franziska Schmid, Sandra Schwarz, Lorna Duggan, Werner Kissling, Stefan Leucht

Abstract

In many countries of the industrialised world second generation ("atypical") antipsychotics have become the first line drug treatment for people with schizophrenia. The question as to whether, and if so how much, the effects of the various second generation antipsychotics differ is a matter of debate. In this review we examined how the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine differs from that of other second generation antipsychotics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users 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 468 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 3 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Other 5 1%
Unknown 451 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 72 15%
Researcher 64 14%
Student > Bachelor 51 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 9%
Other 32 7%
Other 103 22%
Unknown 106 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 164 35%
Psychology 48 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 22 5%
Other 63 13%
Unknown 122 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 05 September 2022.
All research outputs
#2,766,526
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,379
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,985
of 110,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#16
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 110,348 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.