| Title |
Validity of British Thoracic Society guidance (the CRB-65 rule) for predicting the severity of pneumonia in general practice: systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Journal of General Practice, October 2010
|
| DOI | 10.3399/bjgp10x532422 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maggie McNally, James Curtain, Kirsty K O'Brien, Borislav D Dimitrov, Tom Fahey |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 137 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 17 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 15 | 10% |
| Researcher | 13 | 9% |
| Other | 27 | 19% |
| Unknown | 38 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 77 | 53% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Unknown | 42 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 25 September 2019.
All research outputs
#2,332,618
of 24,820,264 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#1,116
of 4,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,757
of 104,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#3
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,820,264 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,614 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 104,180 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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 90% of its contemporaries.