| Title |
Antibody induction therapy for lung transplant recipients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008927.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Luit Penninga, Christian H Møller, Elisabeth I Penninga, Martin Iversen, Christian Gluud, Daniel A Steinbrüchel |
| Abstract |
Lung transplantation has become a valuable and well-accepted treatment option for most end-stage lung diseases. Lung transplant recipients are at risk of transplanted organ rejection, and life-long immunosuppression is necessary. Clear evidence is essential to identify an optimal, safe and effective immunosuppressive treatment strategy for lung transplant recipients. Consensus has not yet been achieved concerning use of immunosuppressive antibodies against T-cells for induction following lung transplantation. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Australia | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 145 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 26 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 14% |
| Other | 14 | 10% |
| Researcher | 12 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 25 | 17% |
| Unknown | 40 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 68 | 46% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 3% |
| Psychology | 4 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 9% |
| Unknown | 44 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 17 January 2014.
All research outputs
#7,436,181
of 22,733,113 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,939
of 12,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,135
of 306,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#168
of 229 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,733,113 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 306,502 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 229 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.