| Title |
Which weight-loss programmes are as effective as Weight Watchers®?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Journal of General Practice, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3399/bjgp14x677491 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claire D Madigan, Amanda J Daley, Amanda L Lewis, Kate Jolly, Paul Aveyard |
| Abstract |
Three randomised controlled trials have provided strong evidence that Weight Watchers(®) is an effective weight-loss programme but there is insufficient evidence to determine whether three other weight-loss programmes are also effective. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 | 7 | 33% |
| United States | 4 | 19% |
| India | 1 | 5% |
| Germany | 1 | 5% |
| Belgium | 1 | 5% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 5% |
| Spain | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 24% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 43% |
| Members of the public | 9 | 43% |
| Scientists | 3 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Unknown | 145 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 28 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 14% |
| Researcher | 16 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 12% |
| Unknown | 32 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 15% |
| Psychology | 10 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 26 | 18% |
| Unknown | 37 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 104. 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 10 April 2021.
All research outputs
#360,508
of 23,655,983 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#145
of 4,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,278
of 224,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#3
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,655,983 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,402 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 224,415 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 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.