| Title |
Biobanking research on oncological residual material: a framework between the rights of the individual and the interest of society
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-14-17 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Luciana Caenazzo, Pamela Tozzo, Renzo Pegoraro |
| Abstract |
The tissue biobanking of specific biological residual materials, which constitutes a useful resource for medical/scientific research, has raised some ethical issues, such as the need to define which kind of consent is applicable for biological residual materials biobanks. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 2 | 29% |
| Spain | 1 | 14% |
| Latvia | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Belgium | 1 | 2% |
| Egypt | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 44 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 27% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 13% |
| Professor | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 19% |
| Unknown | 6 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 29% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 13% |
| Psychology | 5 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 15% |
| Unknown | 9 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 April 2013.
All research outputs
#7,552,943
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#616
of 1,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,195
of 202,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#8
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,009 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 202,021 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.