↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Embed badge What is this page?

Extracorporeal photopheresis versus standard treatment for acute graft-versus-host disease after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in paediatric patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley

What is this page?

Summary Twitter Wikipedia Dimensions citations
Title
Extracorporeal photopheresis versus standard treatment for acute graft-versus-host disease after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in paediatric patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009759.pub2
Pubmed ID
24569960
Authors

Weitz M, Strahm B, Meerpohl JJ, Bassler D, Weitz, Marcus, Strahm, Brigitte, Meerpohl, Joerg J, Bassler, Dirk

Abstract

Acute graft-versus host disease (aGvHD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) occurring in 8% to 59% of the recipients. Currently, the therapeutic mainstay for aGvHD is corticosteroids. However, there is no established standard treatment for steroid-refractory aGvHD. Extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) is a type of immunomodulatory method amongst different therapeutic options that involves ex vivo collection of peripheral mononuclear cells, exposure to the photoactive agent 8-methoxypsoralen and ultraviolet-A radiation, and re-infusion of these treated blood cells to the patient. The mechanisms of action of ECP are not completely understood

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 20%
Student > Bachelor 1 10%
Professor 1 10%
Other 1 10%
Student > Master 1 10%
Other 3 30%
Unknown 1 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 20%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 10%
Engineering 1 10%
Unknown 1 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 10 July 2014.
All research outputs
#2,630,244
of 12,100,779 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,563
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,735
of 199,787 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#82
of 160 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,100,779 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. 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 199,787 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 160 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.

This page is hosted by Altmetric on behalf of Cochrane Library.