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 |
The scatter of research: cross sectional comparison of randomised trials and systematic reviews across specialties
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Medical Journal, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1136/bmj.e3223 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tammy Hoffmann, Chrissy Erueti, Sarah Thorning, Paul Glasziou |
| Abstract |
To estimate the degree of scatter of reports of randomised trials and systematic reviews, and how the scatter differs among medical specialties and subspecialties. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 | 6 | 22% |
| Australia | 5 | 19% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 7% |
| Canada | 2 | 7% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
| Japan | 1 | 4% |
| Portugal | 1 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Chile | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 6 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 37% |
| Scientists | 9 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 30% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 6% |
| Canada | 3 | 4% |
| Norway | 1 | 1% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 1% |
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 59 | 82% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 10 | 14% |
| Professor | 8 | 11% |
| Librarian | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 21 | 29% |
| Unknown | 7 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 50% |
| Psychology | 4 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 4% |
| Engineering | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 15 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 28 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,049,137
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from British Medical Journal
#10,742
of 64,880 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,370
of 177,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Medical Journal
#52
of 823 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 64,880 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 177,284 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 823 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.