↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Amphotericin B versus fluconazole for controlling fungal infections in neutropenic cancer patients

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
Amphotericin B versus fluconazole for controlling fungal infections in neutropenic cancer patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000239.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helle Krogh Johansen, Peter C Gøtzsche

Abstract

Systemic fungal infection is considered to be an important cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients, particularly those with neutropenia. Antifungal drugs are often given prophylactically, or empirically to patients with persistent fever.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 76 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Other 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Student > Master 9 11%
Researcher 7 9%
Other 19 24%
Unknown 14 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 44%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 8%
Unspecified 3 4%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 15 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 February 2020.
All research outputs
#4,650,620
of 16,995,670 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,154
of 11,605 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,750
of 207,918 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#161
of 220 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,995,670 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,605 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.6. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 207,918 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 220 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.