| Title |
A randomised, phase II, unblinded trial of an Exercise and Nutrition-based Rehabilitation programme (ENeRgy) versus standard care in patients with cancer: feasibility trial protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, December 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40814-018-0381-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Charlie C. Hall, Lucy Norris, Liz Dixon, Jane Cook, Matthew Maddocks, Catriona Graham, Sharon Tuck, Erna Haraldsdottir, Duncan Brown, Anna Lloyd, Anne Finucane, Peter Hall, Katharina Diernberger, Richard J. E. Skipworth, Marie Fallon, Barry J. Laird |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 | 11 | 61% |
| France | 1 | 6% |
| Chile | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 5 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 61% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 22% |
| Scientists | 2 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 12 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 33% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 2 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 25% |
| Psychology | 1 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 April 2019.
All research outputs
#3,079,249
of 25,347,437 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#178
of 1,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,422
of 450,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#10
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,347,437 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,219 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. 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 450,220 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 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 72% of its contemporaries.