↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Mycophenolate mofetil versus methotrexate for prevention of graft-versus-host disease in people receiving allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 Mendeley
Title
Mycophenolate mofetil versus methotrexate for prevention of graft-versus-host disease in people receiving allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010280.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohamed Kharfan-Dabaja, Rahul Mhaskar, Tea Reljic, Joseph Pidala, Janelle B Perkins, Benjamin Djulbegovic, Ambuj Kumar

Abstract

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is associated with improved outcomes for people with various hematologic diseases; however, the morbidity and mortality resulting from acute and subsequently chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) pose a serious challenge to wider applicability of allo-HCT. Intravenous methotrexate in combination with a calcineurin inhibitor, cyclosporine or tacrolimus, is a widely used regimen for the prophylaxis of acute GVHD, but the administration of methotrexate is associated with a number of adverse events. Mycophenolate mofetil, in combination with a calcineurin inhibitor, has been used extensively in people undergoing allo-HCT. Conflicting results regarding various clinical outcomes following allo-HCT have been observed when comparing mycophenolate mofetil-based regimens against methotrexate-based regimens for acute GVHD prophylaxis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 141 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 17%
Student > Bachelor 16 11%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Postgraduate 14 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 37 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 5%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Psychology 6 4%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 43 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 26 January 2015.
All research outputs
#12,115,579
of 21,343,037 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,565
of 12,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,663
of 207,934 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#175
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,343,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,045 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.0. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 207,934 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.