| Title |
Best practice for HRT: unpicking the evidence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Journal of General Practice, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3399/bjgp16x687097 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Louise R Newson |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 16 | 53% |
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 11 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 22 | 73% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 3% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 47 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 19% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 15 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 15 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 83. 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 14 February 2024.
All research outputs
#520,888
of 25,724,500 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#210
of 4,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,854
of 332,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#6
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,724,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,931 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.7. 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 332,332 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 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 92% of its contemporaries.