↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Oral versus intravenous antibiotic treatment for febrile neutropenia in cancer patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
6 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 Mendeley
Title
Oral versus intravenous antibiotic treatment for febrile neutropenia in cancer patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003992.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Liat Vidal, Itsik Ben dor, Mical Paul, Noa Eliakim-Raz, Ellisheva Pokroy, Karla Soares-Weiser, Leonard Leibovici

Abstract

Fever occurring in a neutropenic patient remains a common life-threatening complication of cancer chemotherapy. The common practice is to admit the patient to hospital and treat him or her empirically with intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotics. Oral therapy could be an alternative approach for selected patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 151 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 22 14%
Student > Master 21 14%
Researcher 19 12%
Student > Postgraduate 16 10%
Other 13 8%
Other 31 20%
Unknown 32 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 80 52%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 2%
Other 10 6%
Unknown 37 24%

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 25 February 2020.
All research outputs
#970,487
of 17,060,012 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,572
of 11,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,073
of 176,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#28
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,060,012 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 11,625 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 176,785 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.