↓ Skip to main content

Brief communication: Better ways to question patients about adverse medical events: a randomized, controlled trial.

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Internal Medicine, February 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Brief communication: Better ways to question patients about adverse medical events: a randomized, controlled trial.
Published in
Annals of Internal Medicine, February 2006
DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-144-4-200602210-00007
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

There is no standard method of identifying adverse events in clinical trials.

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 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 %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 63 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Professor 5 8%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 16 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Unspecified 3 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Other 15 23%
Unknown 19 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 31 May 2017.
All research outputs
#3,050,563
of 34,575,175 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Internal Medicine
#6,095
of 16,996 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,668
of 131,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Internal Medicine
#19
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,575,175 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,996 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 59.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 131,624 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 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 57% of its contemporaries.