The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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.
| Title |
Computerized advice on drug dosage to improve prescribing practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd002894.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Florence Gillaizeau, Ellis Chan, Ludovic Trinquart, Isabelle Colombet, Walton, Myriam Rège‐Walther, Bernard Burnand, Pierre Durieux |
| Abstract |
Maintaining therapeutic concentrations of drugs with a narrow therapeutic window is a complex task. Several computer systems have been designed to help doctors determine optimum drug dosage. Significant improvements in health care could be achieved if computer advice improved health outcomes and could be implemented in routine practice in a cost-effective fashion. This is an updated version of an earlier Cochrane systematic review, first published in 2001 and updated in 2008. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 14% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 7% |
| Australia | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 10 | 71% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 71% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
| Scientists | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 565 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Pakistan | 1 | <1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 3 | <1% |
| Unknown | 545 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 88 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 82 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 65 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 56 | 10% |
| Other | 39 | 7% |
| Other | 116 | 21% |
| Unknown | 119 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 203 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 65 | 12% |
| Psychology | 30 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 28 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 20 | 4% |
| Other | 69 | 12% |
| Unknown | 150 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 31 January 2014.
All research outputs
#4,326,174
of 26,385,174 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,608
of 13,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,655
of 226,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#140
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,385,174 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.6. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 226,630 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.