| Title |
Effect of Bedside vs. Non-bedside Patient Case Presentation During Ward Rounds: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-018-4714-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Martina Gamp, Christoph Becker, Theresa Tondorf, Seraina Hochstrasser, Kerstin Metzger, Gunther Meinlschmidt, Wolf Langewitz, Rainer Schäfert, Stefano Bassetti, Sabina Hunziker |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 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 States | 18 | 55% |
| Japan | 3 | 9% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Indonesia | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 7 | 21% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 48% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 13 | 39% |
| Scientists | 3 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 44 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 16 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Psychology | 2 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 20 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 06 March 2019.
All research outputs
#1,830,688
of 25,382,360 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,394
of 8,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,117
of 451,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#23
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,360 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,169 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 451,411 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.