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 |
Evaluating clinician acceptability of the prototype CanRisk tool for predicting risk of breast and ovarian cancer: A multi-methods study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, March 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0229999 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephanie Archer, Chantal Babb de Villiers, Fiona Scheibl, Tim Carver, Simon Hartley, Andrew Lee, Alex P. Cunningham, Douglas F. Easton, Jennifer G. McIntosh, Jon Emery, Marc Tischkowitz, Antonis C. Antoniou, Fiona M. Walter |
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 | 13 | 72% |
| South Africa | 1 | 6% |
| Austria | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 3 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 61% |
| Scientists | 5 | 28% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 92 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 16% |
| Researcher | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Unknown | 36 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 5% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 14% |
| Unknown | 43 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 31 July 2023.
All research outputs
#1,933,273
of 25,247,084 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#23,815
of 219,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,951
of 368,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#385
of 2,649 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,247,084 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 219,058 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 368,979 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,649 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.