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 |
Adverse effects of cannabis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Lancet, November 1998
|
| DOI | 10.1016/s0140-6736(98)05021-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wayne Hall, Nadia Solowij |
| Abstract |
Cannabis is the most widely used illicit drug in many developed societies. Its health and psychological effects are not well understood and remain the subject of much debate, with opinions on its risks polarised along the lines of proponents' views on what its legal status should be. An unfortunate consequence of this polarisation of opinion has been the absence of any consensus on what health information the medical profession should give to patients who are users or potential users of cannabis. There is conflicting evidence about many of the effects of cannabis use, so we summarise the evidence on the most probable adverse health and psychological consequences of acute and chronic use. This uncertainty, however, should not prevent medical practitioners from advising patients about the most likely ill-effects of their cannabis use. Here we make some suggestions about the advice doctors can give to patients who use, or are contemplating the use, of this drug. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Czechia | 1 | 10% |
| Brazil | 1 | 10% |
| Austria | 1 | 10% |
| Hungary | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 336 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Slovenia | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 326 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 80 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 44 | 13% |
| Researcher | 27 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 6% |
| Other | 56 | 17% |
| Unknown | 85 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 70 | 21% |
| Psychology | 31 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 26 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 16 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 4% |
| Other | 80 | 24% |
| Unknown | 98 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 58. 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 15 September 2022.
All research outputs
#733,156
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#6,169
of 42,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#266
of 41,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#5
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 42,669 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 67.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 41,240 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 154 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 96% of its contemporaries.