| Title |
First experience of COVID-19 screening of health-care workers in England
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Lancet, April 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30970-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ewan Hunter, David A Price, Elizabeth Murphy, Ina Schim van der Loeff, Kenneth F Baker, Dennis Lendrem, Clare Lendrem, Matthias L Schmid, Lucia Pareja-Cebrian, Andrew Welch, Brendan A I Payne, Christopher J A Duncan |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 399 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 | 102 | 26% |
| Japan | 49 | 12% |
| United States | 20 | 5% |
| Spain | 13 | 3% |
| Australia | 10 | 3% |
| Canada | 8 | 2% |
| India | 5 | 1% |
| Malaysia | 3 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 21 | 5% |
| Unknown | 166 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 269 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 69 | 17% |
| Scientists | 53 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 8 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 434 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 434 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 53 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 47 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 47 | 11% |
| Other | 36 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 5% |
| Other | 100 | 23% |
| Unknown | 128 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 159 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 33 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 16 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 3% |
| Other | 68 | 16% |
| Unknown | 132 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1105. 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 14 December 2020.
All research outputs
#13,875
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#419
of 42,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#736
of 405,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#38
of 392 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 42,964 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 68.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 405,320 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 392 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 90% of its contemporaries.