↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Computerized advice on drug dosage to improve prescribing practice

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 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)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
17 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
93 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
547 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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, RT 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 547 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 527 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 87 16%
Student > Master 83 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 62 11%
Student > Bachelor 56 10%
Other 34 6%
Other 142 26%
Unknown 83 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 212 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 62 11%
Psychology 29 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 26 5%
Social Sciences 20 4%
Other 89 16%
Unknown 109 20%

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 31 January 2014.
All research outputs
#2,842,511
of 22,729,647 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,523
of 12,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,393
of 212,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#121
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,729,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,315 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 212,425 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 237 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.