| Title |
Erythropoiesis‐stimulating agents for anaemia in adults with chronic kidney disease: a network meta‐analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd010590.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Suetonia C Palmer, Valeria Saglimbene, Dimitris Mavridis, Georgia Salanti, Jonathan C Craig, Marcello Tonelli, Natasha Wiebe, Giovanni FM Strippoli |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 15% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| Australia | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 9 | 69% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 69% |
| Scientists | 2 | 15% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 336 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Uruguay | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 329 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 59 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 45 | 13% |
| Researcher | 37 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 21 | 6% |
| Other | 53 | 16% |
| Unknown | 95 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 126 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 30 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 12 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 3% |
| Psychology | 10 | 3% |
| Other | 40 | 12% |
| Unknown | 107 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 08 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,271,002
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,671
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,521
of 368,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#62
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 368,426 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 250 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.