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 |
Understanding How Data Triangulation Identifies Acute Toxicity of Novel Psychoactive Drugs
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Toxicology, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13181-012-0241-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
D. M. Wood, P. I. Dargan |
| Abstract |
Over the last decade, there has been an increase in the availability and use of novel psychoactive substances (also known as "legal highs"). There is limited information available on the potential acute toxicity (harms) associated with the use of these novel psychoactive substances. Gold standard evidence, such as animal studies or human clinical trials, is rarely available to users or healthcare professionals. However, it is possible to use triangulation of data on the acute toxicity from multiple sources to describe the overall pattern of toxicity associated with a novel psychoactive substance. In this review, we will describe these potential data sources, which include self-reported toxicity on internet discussion fora, data from sub-population user surveys, data from regional and national poisons information services and published case reports and case series. We will then describe how pattern of acute toxicity associated with the use of the cathinone mephedrone (4-methylmethcathinone) was established using triangulation of these different data sources. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Poland | 1 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 50 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 21% |
| Researcher | 9 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 15% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 9 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 13 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 9% |
| Psychology | 5 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 12 | 23% |
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 25 May 2012.
All research outputs
#18,306,425
of 22,665,794 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Toxicology
#598
of 661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,328
of 163,776 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Toxicology
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,665,794 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 661 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.3. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 163,776 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.