| Title |
Prognostic models for newly-diagnosed chronic lymphocytic leukaemia in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd012022.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nina Kreuzberger, Johanna AAG Damen, Marialena Trivella, Lise J Estcourt, Angela Aldin, Lisa Umlauff, Maria DLA Vazquez-Montes, Robert Wolff, Karel GM Moons, Ina Monsef, Farid Foroutan, Karl-Anton Kreuzer, Nicole Skoetz |
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 Kingdom | 3 | 23% |
| India | 1 | 8% |
| South Africa | 1 | 8% |
| United States | 1 | 8% |
| Belgium | 1 | 8% |
| Germany | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 69% |
| Scientists | 2 | 15% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 15% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 130 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 9% |
| Other | 11 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 7% |
| Researcher | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 16 | 12% |
| Unknown | 59 | 45% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 3% |
| Psychology | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 9% |
| Unknown | 61 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 29 November 2021.
All research outputs
#2,838,984
of 23,225,652 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,532
of 12,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,233
of 398,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#101
of 187 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,225,652 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,398 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 398,138 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 81% 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 is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.