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 |
Interrater Reliability of the Modified Monitoring of Side Effects Scale for Assessment of Adverse Effects of Psychiatric Medication in Clinical and Research Settings
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1097/jcp.0000000000000311 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Katie L. Nugent, Erin Spahr, Jaimie Toroney, Ramin Mojtabai, Carrie Nettles, Lydia W. Turner, Ashley Fenton, Amethyst Spivak, Bernadette A. Cullen, Anita Everett, William W. Eaton |
| Abstract |
The assessment of adverse effects of psychiatric medications is important in clinical and research settings because they are often associated with medication discontinuation, symptom exacerbation, and reduced quality of life. Currently available assessment tools are either limited with regard to the number and variety of included adverse effects or are not practical for use in most clinical or research settings owing to specialized rater training required and administration length. This report describes a modification of the Monitoring of Side Effects Scale (MOSES), an established adverse effect rating scale, by adding severity anchors to improve its reliability and ease of use. Interrater reliability was good for 7 of the 8 bodily adverse effects assessed, with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.76 to 0.91 in a sample of patients with severe mental illness. This modified version of the Monitoring of Side Effects Scale holds promise as a useful tool for assessing medication adverse effects in clinical and research settings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 21% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 17% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 8% |
| Psychology | 2 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 10 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 May 2015.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology
#1,661
of 3,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,111
of 281,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology
#13
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,101 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 281,411 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.