↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#33 of 1,041)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
24 X users
patent
4 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page
podcasts
1 podcast

Readers on

mendeley
198 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.
Article details
Title
Development of the Stanford Expectations of Treatment Scale (SETS): A tool for measuring patient outcome expectancy in clinical trials
Published in
Clinical Trials, November 2012
DOI 10.1177/1740774512465064
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

A patient's response to treatment may be influenced by the expectations that the patient has before initiating treatment. In the context of clinical trials, the influence of participant expectancy may blur the distinction between real and sham treatments, reducing statistical power to detect specific treatment effects. There is therefore a need for a tool that prospectively predicts expectancy effects on treatment outcomes across a wide range of treatment modalities.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 198 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Germany 2 1%
Finland 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 193 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 15%
Student > Master 24 12%
Student > Bachelor 23 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 11%
Other 13 7%
Other 31 16%
Unknown 55 28%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 20%
Psychology 37 19%
Neuroscience 15 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 22 11%
Unknown 69 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 July 2026.
All research outputs
#1,424,289
of 32,023,687 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Trials
#33
of 1,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,968
of 328,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Trials
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,023,687 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,041 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 328,960 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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.