Title |
Oseltamivir treatment for influenza in adults: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
|
---|---|
Published in |
The Lancet, January 2015
|
DOI | 10.1016/s0140-6736(14)62449-1 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Joanna Dobson, Richard J Whitley, Stuart Pocock, Arnold S Monto |
Abstract |
Despite widespread use, questions remain about the efficacy of oseltamivir in the treatment of influenza. We aimed to do an individual patient data meta-analysis for all clinical trials comparing oseltamivir with placebo for treatment of seasonal influenza in adults regarding symptom alleviation, complications, and safety. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 300 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 | 38 | 13% |
Japan | 30 | 10% |
United Kingdom | 25 | 8% |
Spain | 14 | 5% |
Australia | 10 | 3% |
Mexico | 9 | 3% |
France | 4 | 1% |
Brazil | 4 | 1% |
Switzerland | 3 | 1% |
Other | 29 | 10% |
Unknown | 134 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 216 | 72% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 46 | 15% |
Scientists | 26 | 9% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 11 | 4% |
Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 492 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 4 | <1% |
Japan | 3 | <1% |
Canada | 2 | <1% |
Chile | 1 | <1% |
France | 1 | <1% |
Germany | 1 | <1% |
United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
Denmark | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 478 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 72 | 15% |
Other | 66 | 13% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 53 | 11% |
Student > Bachelor | 49 | 10% |
Student > Master | 48 | 10% |
Other | 121 | 25% |
Unknown | 83 | 17% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 225 | 46% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 32 | 7% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 29 | 6% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 25 | 5% |
Immunology and Microbiology | 17 | 3% |
Other | 56 | 11% |
Unknown | 108 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 837. 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 03 January 2024.
All research outputs
#22,231
of 25,743,152 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#561
of 42,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177
of 363,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#3
of 557 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,743,152 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 42,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 68.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 363,451 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 557 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.