↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Adverse effects of biologics: a network meta-analysis and Cochrane overview

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
651 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
442 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
Adverse effects of biologics: a network meta-analysis and Cochrane overview
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008794.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jasvinder A Singh, George A Wells, Robin Christensen, Elizabeth Tanjong Ghogomu, Lara J Maxwell, John K MacDonald, Graziella Filippini, Nicole Skoetz, Damian K Francis, Luciane C Lopes, Gordon H Guyatt, Jochen Schmitt, Loredana La Mantia, Tobias Weberschock, Juliana F Roos, Hendrik Siebert, Sarah Hershan, Chris Cameron, Michael PT Lunn, Peter Tugwell, Rachelle Buchbinder

Abstract

Biologics are used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many other conditions. While the efficacy of biologics has been established, there is uncertainty regarding the adverse effects of this treatment. Since serious risks such as tuberculosis (TB) reactivation, serious infections, and lymphomas may be common to the biologics but occur in small numbers across the various indications, we planned to combine the results from biologics used in many conditions to obtain the much needed risk estimates.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 442 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 442 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 4 <1%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 <1%
Researcher 4 <1%
Student > Bachelor 2 <1%
Student > Master 2 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 425 96%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 <1%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 <1%
Social Sciences 1 <1%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 426 96%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. 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 June 2021.
All research outputs
#662,998
of 18,414,344 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,600
of 11,825 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,269
of 78,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,414,344 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,825 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 78,938 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.