| Title |
Clinical practice guidelines and experts’ consensuses of traditional Chinese herbal medicine for novel coronavirus (COVID-19): protocol of a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, August 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-020-01432-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yuxi Li, Juan Li, Dongling Zhong, Yue Zhang, Yonggang Zhang, Yan Guo, Mike Clarke, Rongjiang Jin |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 1 | 33% |
| Philippines | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 99 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 10% |
| Researcher | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 29 | 29% |
| Unknown | 31 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 5% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 15% |
| Unknown | 36 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 02 August 2021.
All research outputs
#16,128,335
of 25,492,047 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,660
of 2,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#245,425
of 427,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#52
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,492,047 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,237 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 427,009 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.