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 |
Standard versus atrial fibrillation-specific management strategy (SAFETY) to reduce recurrent admission and prolong survival: pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Lancet, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1016/s0140-6736(14)61992-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Simon Stewart, Jocasta Ball, John D Horowitz, Thomas H Marwick, Gnanadevan Mahadevan, Chiew Wong, Walter P Abhayaratna, Yih K Chan, Adrian Esterman, David R Thompson, Paul A Scuffham, Melinda J Carrington |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 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 | 4 | 11% |
| Australia | 2 | 6% |
| Spain | 2 | 6% |
| Mexico | 2 | 6% |
| Canada | 2 | 6% |
| Japan | 2 | 6% |
| Argentina | 2 | 6% |
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Uruguay | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 13 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 24 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 19% |
| Scientists | 4 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 259 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 256 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 39 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 37 | 14% |
| Researcher | 33 | 13% |
| Other | 24 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 9% |
| Other | 42 | 16% |
| Unknown | 60 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 84 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 42 | 16% |
| Psychology | 18 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 2% |
| Other | 28 | 11% |
| Unknown | 72 | 28% |
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 04 November 2019.
All research outputs
#735,144
of 25,450,869 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#6,179
of 42,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,991
of 368,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#114
of 552 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,450,869 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 42,732 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 68.0. 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 368,283 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 552 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.