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 |
Strengths and weaknesses of working with the Global Trigger Tool method for retrospective record review: focus group interviews with team members
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMJ Open, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003131 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kristina Schildmeijer, Lena Nilsson, Joep Perk, Kristofer Årestedt, Gunilla Nilsson |
| Abstract |
The aim was to describe the strengths and weaknesses, from team member perspectives, of working with the Global Trigger Tool (GTT) method of retrospective record review to identify adverse events causing patient harm. |
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 Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 62 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 13% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 24% |
| Unknown | 12 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 18 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 28 April 2015.
All research outputs
#14,913,296
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#15,651
of 25,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,003
of 215,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#140
of 215 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,582 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 215,064 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 215 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.