You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Potential effects of telbivudine and entecavir on renal function: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Virology Journal, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12985-016-0522-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xiaolu Wu, Shaohang Cai, Zhandong Li, Caixia Zheng, Xiulan Xue, Jianyong Zeng, Jie Peng |
| Abstract |
To assess the potential effects of telbivudine (LdT) and entecavir (ETV) on renal function in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB), we performed a meta-analysis of the relevant data available on these agents to evaluate their effects on the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) during treatment. The PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), Cochrane Library, and WanFang databases were searched for relevant articles appearing in the literature up to July 1, 2015. A total of 6 studies (1960 CHB patients) with 1-year eGFR outcomes were retrieved and analyzed. Generally, the results of the 6 studies analyzed showed that eGFR was improved after LdT treatment, but was decreased after ETV treatment. Using a fixed-effects approach, the change in eGFR was found to be significantly different between LdT and ETV treatment (Z = 3.64; P = 0.0003). Whereas the eGFR was slightly decreased with ETV compared with baseline (-1.45 mL/min/1.73 m(2)), the eGFR was improved with LdT (2.99 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) after 1 year of treatment. An overall test of effect in the meta-analysis showed that the eGFR in LdT-treated patients was significantly improved after 1-year of treatment (Z = 3.71; P = 0.0002). This meta-analysis has confirmed that LdT has a renal protective effect whereas ETV does not. However, whether the benefit on renal function outweighs the occurrence of resistance in specific clinical situations is not yet clear. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 23% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 54% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 8% |
| Decision Sciences | 1 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 09 April 2016.
All research outputs
#18,450,346
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from Virology Journal
#2,445
of 3,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,604
of 300,860 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Virology Journal
#47
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,051 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.7. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 300,860 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.