| Title |
A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMJ Open, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006577 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
C Raina MacIntyre, Holly Seale, Tham Chi Dung, Nguyen Tran Hien, Phan Thi Nga, Abrar Ahmad Chughtai, Bayzidur Rahman, Dominic E Dwyer, Quanyi Wang |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45,533 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 States | 10508 | 23% |
| Japan | 3123 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 1442 | 3% |
| Canada | 779 | 2% |
| Brazil | 456 | 1% |
| Australia | 239 | <1% |
| France | 209 | <1% |
| Spain | 183 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 129 | <1% |
| Other | 2389 | 5% |
| Unknown | 26076 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 42803 | 94% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1202 | 3% |
| Scientists | 989 | 2% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 360 | <1% |
| Unknown | 179 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 956 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 955 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 116 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 109 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 105 | 11% |
| Other | 93 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 72 | 8% |
| Other | 203 | 21% |
| Unknown | 258 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 243 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 76 | 8% |
| Engineering | 49 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 44 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 41 | 4% |
| Other | 205 | 21% |
| Unknown | 298 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24863. 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 18 May 2024.
All research outputs
#14
of 25,928,676 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#1
of 26,070 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1
of 281,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#1
of 336 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,928,676 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 26,070 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 281,370 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 336 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 99% of its contemporaries.