↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Anti-pseudomonal beta-lactams for the initial, empirical, treatment of febrile neutropenia: comparison of beta-lactams

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2010
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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 Mendeley
Title
Anti-pseudomonal beta-lactams for the initial, empirical, treatment of febrile neutropenia: comparison of beta-lactams
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005197.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mical Paul, Dafna Yahav, Assaf Bivas, Abigail Fraser, Leonard Leibovici

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Unknown 126 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 17%
Researcher 18 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Student > Postgraduate 10 8%
Other 36 28%
Unknown 18 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 72 55%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 5%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 21 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 12 March 2020.
All research outputs
#1,428,812
of 17,353,889 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,618
of 11,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,113
of 270,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#83
of 187 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,353,889 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,661 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 270,024 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 187 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.