| Title |
DIET@NET: Best Practice Guidelines for dietary assessment in health research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-017-0962-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Janet E. Cade, Marisol Warthon-Medina, Salwa Albar, Nisreen A. Alwan, Andrew Ness, Mark Roe, Petra A. Wark, Katharine Greathead, Victoria J. Burley, Paul Finglas, Laura Johnson, Polly Page, Katharine Roberts, Toni Steer, Jozef Hooson, Darren C. Greenwood, Sian Robinson, on behalf of the DIET@NET consortium |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 89 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 | 34 | 38% |
| Ireland | 8 | 9% |
| Australia | 5 | 6% |
| United States | 3 | 3% |
| Finland | 2 | 2% |
| Saudi Arabia | 2 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Isle of Man | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Unknown | 28 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 33 | 37% |
| Scientists | 32 | 36% |
| Members of the public | 24 | 27% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 217 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 217 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 29 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 12% |
| Researcher | 24 | 11% |
| Other | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 34 | 16% |
| Unknown | 64 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 41 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 34 | 16% |
| Unknown | 73 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. 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 September 2018.
All research outputs
#719,407
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#504
of 4,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,544
of 340,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#4
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 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 4,076 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 46.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 340,089 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 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 91% of its contemporaries.