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 |
Monitoring for Postnatal Hearing Loss Using Risk Factors
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ear and hearing (Print), November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1097/aud.0b013e31825b1cd9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rachael Beswick, Carlie Driscoll, Joseph Kei |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to investigate whether there was evidence-based support for targeted surveillance programs using a risk-factor registry to detect postnatal hearing loss or whether other programs were available that may be more effective than targeted surveillance. Particularly, it addressed questions that arose along the targeted surveillance pathway, including: (1) the risk factors used to determine a referral, (2) referral frequencies, (3) the relationship between risk factors and a postnatal hearing loss, and (4) other systems that may be more efficient than the use of risk factors. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 2% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 120 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 11% |
| Researcher | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 9% |
| Other | 29 | 24% |
| Unknown | 28 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 6% |
| Psychology | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 11% |
| Unknown | 31 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 October 2012.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Ear and hearing (Print)
#1,226
of 2,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,634
of 202,248 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ear and hearing (Print)
#5
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,008 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 202,248 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.