| Title |
Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Medical Journal, July 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1136/bmj.m2980 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Reed AC Siemieniuk, Jessica J Bartoszko, Long Ge, Dena Zeraatkar, Ariel Izcovich, Elena Kum, Hector Pardo-Hernandez, Anila Qasim, Juan Pablo Díaz Martinez, Bram Rochwerg, Francois Lamontagne, Mi Ah Han, Qin Liu, Arnav Agarwal, Thomas Agoritsas, Derek K Chu, Rachel Couban, Ellen Cusano, Andrea Darzi, Tahira Devji, Bo Fang, Carmen Fang, Signe Agnes Flottorp, Farid Foroutan, Maryam Ghadimi, Diane Heels-Ansdell, Kimia Honarmand, Liangying Hou, Xiaorong Hou, Quazi Ibrahim, Assem Khamis, Bonnie Lam, Mark Loeb, Maura Marcucci, Shelley L McLeod, Sharhzad Motaghi, Srinivas Murthy, Reem A Mustafa, John D Neary, Gabriel Rada, Irbaz Bin Riaz, Behnam Sadeghirad, Nigar Sekercioglu, Lulu Sheng, Ashwini Sreekanta, Charlotte Switzer, Britta Tendal, Lehana Thabane, George Tomlinson, Tari Turner, Per O Vandvik, Robin WM Vernooij, Andrés Viteri-García, Ying Wang, Liang Yao, Zhikang Ye, Gordon H Guyatt, Romina Brignardello-Petersen |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6,992 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 877 | 13% |
| United States | 517 | 7% |
| Brazil | 257 | 4% |
| Canada | 172 | 2% |
| Spain | 150 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 139 | 2% |
| Mexico | 138 | 2% |
| India | 114 | 2% |
| Ecuador | 71 | 1% |
| Other | 837 | 12% |
| Unknown | 3720 | 53% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6207 | 89% |
| Scientists | 372 | 5% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 328 | 5% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 83 | 1% |
| Unknown | 2 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,272 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1272 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 168 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 117 | 9% |
| Researcher | 114 | 9% |
| Other | 90 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 72 | 6% |
| Other | 200 | 16% |
| Unknown | 511 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 352 | 28% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 86 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 52 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 42 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 27 | 2% |
| Other | 152 | 12% |
| Unknown | 561 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3410. 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 25 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,751
of 25,840,929 outputs
Outputs from British Medical Journal
#46
of 65,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115
of 428,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Medical Journal
#5
of 786 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,840,929 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 65,144 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 428,705 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 786 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.