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 |
Sex differences in medico-legal action against doctors: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-015-0413-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emily Unwin, Katherine Woolf, Clare Wadlow, Henry W. W. Potts, Jane Dacre |
| Abstract |
The relationship between male sex and poor performance in doctors remains unclear, with high profile studies showing conflicting results. Nevertheless, it is an important first step towards understanding the causes of poor performance in doctors. This article aims to establish the robustness of the association between male sex and poor performance in doctors, internationally and over time. The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to January 2015. Backward and forward citation searching was performed. Journals that yielded the majority of the eligible articles and journals in the medical education field were electronically searched, along with the conference and poster abstracts from two of the largest international medical education conferences. Studies reporting original data, written in English or French, examining the association between sex and medico-legal action against doctors were included. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics and outcome data from the full texts of the studies meeting the eligibility criteria. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. A random effect meta-analysis model was used to summarize and assess the effect of doctors' sex on medico-legal action. Extracted outcomes included disciplinary action by a medical regulatory board, malpractice experience, referral to a medical regulatory body, complaints received by a healthcare complaints body, criminal cases, and medico-legal matter with a medical defence organisation. Overall, 32 reports examining the association between doctors' sex and medico-legal action were included in the systematic review (n=4,054,551), of which 27 found that male doctors were more likely to have experienced medico-legal action. 19 reports were included in the meta-analysis (n=3,794,486, including 20,666 cases). Results showed male doctors had nearly two and a half times the odds of being subject to medico-legal action than female doctors. Heterogeneity was present in all meta-analyses. Male doctors are more likely to have had experienced medico-legal actions compared to female doctors. This finding is robust internationally, across outcomes of varying severity, and over time. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 138 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 30 | 22% |
| Spain | 7 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 3% |
| Saudi Arabia | 4 | 3% |
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| Uruguay | 2 | 1% |
| Singapore | 1 | <1% |
| Korea, Democratic People's Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Congo | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 3 | 2% |
| Unknown | 82 | 59% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 126 | 91% |
| Scientists | 10 | 7% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 1% |
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 | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 70 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 15% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 25% |
| Unknown | 13 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 39% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 15% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 13 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 183. 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 17 April 2020.
All research outputs
#222,325
of 25,652,464 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#189
of 4,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,414
of 276,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#7
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,652,464 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 4,067 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 276,695 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 87 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 91% of its contemporaries.