↓ Skip to main content

Experiencia en el Foro Global de Biotica en Investigacin. Desafos para la revisin tica en Chile

Overview of attention for article published in Revista Médica de Chile, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
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.
Title
Experiencia en el Foro Global de Biotica en Investigacin. Desafos para la revisin tica en Chile
Published in
Revista Médica de Chile, May 2018
DOI 10.4067/s0034-98872018000500653
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sofía P Salas

Abstract

The Global Forum on Bioethics in Research annually convenes a number of researchers, bioethicists and stakeholders with a shared interest in the ethics of conducting research in low and middle-income countries (LMIC). It provides a useful platform to discuss ethical issues that affect research practice in different scenarios, promoting ethically conducted research, global development for health research ethics and partnerships between the global north and south. As participant of the last three meetings, in this article the author analyzes the main ethical issues that were discussed in this forum, namely "Emerging epidemic infections and experimental medical treatments" (Annecy, France, 2015); "Ethics of research in pregnancy" (Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2016), and "The ethics of alternative clinical trial designs and methods in LMIC research" (Bangkok, Thailand, 2017). Local research ethics committees are not well prepared to face the new ethical challenges associated with research conducted in emergency situations or in pregnant women, or to evaluate new methods, such as alternative clinical trial designs (cluster randomized trials, adaptive platforms, or controlled human infection models, among others). According to this scenario, research ethics committees should be trained to carefully assess the risks and benefits of approving this type of research. In this context, it is necessary to harmonize local regulations with the new international standards in research ethics.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 26%
Student > Master 4 21%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Librarian 2 11%
Other 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 2 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 32%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Social Sciences 2 11%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 4 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 28 August 2018.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Revista Médica de Chile
#615
of 1,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,253
of 339,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista Médica de Chile
#3
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 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 1,283 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. 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 339,234 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 50% of its contemporaries.