| Title |
Decision-Making Process Reported by Medicare Patients Who Had Coronary Artery Stenting or Surgery for Prostate Cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, February 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-012-2009-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Floyd J. Fowler, Patricia M. Gallagher, Julie P. W. Bynum, Michael J. Barry, F. Leslie Lucas, Jonathan S. Skinner |
| Abstract |
Patients facing decisions should be told about their options, have the opportunity to discuss the pros and cons, and have their preferences reflected in the final decision. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 | 4 | 36% |
| France | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 55% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 45% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 36% |
| Scientists | 2 | 18% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 83 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 16% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 24 | 28% |
| Unknown | 20 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 40% |
| Psychology | 7 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 26 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 24 December 2019.
All research outputs
#1,407,639
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,138
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,493
of 158,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#5
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. 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 158,139 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 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.