| Title |
Consistency of Recommendations for Evaluation and Management of Hypertension
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JAMA Network Open, November 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.15975 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Brian S. Alper, Amy Price, Esther J. van Zuuren, Zbys Fedorowicz, Allen F. Shaughnessy, Peter Oettgen, Glyn Elwyn, Amir Qaseem, Ilkka Kunnamo, Urvi Gupta, Deborah D. Carter, Michael Mittelman, Carla Berg-Nelson, Martin Mayer |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 69 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 | 20 | 29% |
| United Kingdom | 7 | 10% |
| Spain | 3 | 4% |
| Saudi Arabia | 2 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 3% |
| Colombia | 2 | 3% |
| Canada | 2 | 3% |
| Ireland | 1 | 1% |
| Russia | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 24 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 40 | 58% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 14 | 20% |
| Scientists | 10 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 11 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 16 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. 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 12 September 2022.
All research outputs
#843,910
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Network Open
#3,966
of 9,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,017
of 477,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Network Open
#119
of 281 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,873 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 128.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 477,956 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 281 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.