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 |
A Clinically Integrated Post-Graduate Training Programme in Evidence-Based Medicine versus ‘No Intervention’ for Improving Disability Evaluations: A Cluster Randomised Clinical Trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0057256 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rob Kok, Jan L. Hoving, Paul B. A. Smits, Sarah M. Ketelaar, Frank J. H. van Dijk, Jos H. Verbeek |
| Abstract |
Although several studies have shown that teaching EBM is effective in improving knowledge, at present, there is no convincing evidence that teaching EBM also changes professional behaviour in practice. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a clinically integrated post-graduate training programme in EBM on evidence-based disability evaluation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Colombia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 69 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 17% |
| Researcher | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 22 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 27% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 11% |
| Psychology | 5 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 24 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 06 November 2013.
All research outputs
#13,379,406
of 22,699,621 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#106,638
of 193,796 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,179
of 194,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,638
of 5,313 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,699,621 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,796 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 194,016 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,313 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.