↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interferons-beta versus glatiramer acetate for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2014
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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
Title
Interferons-beta versus glatiramer acetate for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009333.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

La Mantia L, Di Pietrantonj C, Rovaris M, Rigon G, Frau S, Berardo F, Gandini A, Longobardi A, Weinstock-Guttman B, Vaona A

Abstract

Interferons (IFNs)-beta and glatiramer acetate (GA) were the first two disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) approved 15 years ago for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). DMTs prescription rates as first or switching therapies and their costs have increased substantially over the past decade. As more DMTs become available, the choice of a specific DMT should reflect the risk/benefit profile, as well as the impact on quality profile. As MS cohorts enrolled in different studies can vary significantly, head-to-head trials are considered the best approach for gaining objective reliable data when two different drugs are compared. The purpose of this study is to summarise available evidence on the comparative effectiveness of IFNs-beta and GA on disease course through a systematic review of head-to-head trials.

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.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Spain 1 1%
Turkey 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Unknown 90 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 16%
Other 14 15%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 20 21%
Unknown 12 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 56%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 7%
Psychology 6 6%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 17 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 03 April 2015.
All research outputs
#680,853
of 12,100,779 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,329
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,900
of 202,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#27
of 177 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,100,779 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 202,112 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 177 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.