The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| 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. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 105 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 10% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 7% |
| Researcher | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 20 | 19% |
| Unknown | 35 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 6% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Unknown | 37 | 34% |
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 01 October 2021.
All research outputs
#7,524,217
of 26,402,731 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,893
of 13,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,398
of 248,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#167
of 233 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,402,731 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,253 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.7. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 248,380 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 233 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.