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.
Timeline
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
Title |
Harmonization of the Practice of Independent Ethics Committees in Italy: Project E-Submission
|
---|---|
Published in |
PLOS ONE, November 2012
|
DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0048906 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Gianfranco De Feo, Giacomo Chiabrando, Nunzia Cannovo, Antonio Galluccio, Carlo Tomino |
Abstract |
The high variability of "centre-specific" documentation required by Independent Ethics Committee (IEC) plays a role in the time required for activation of participating centres of multicentre clinical trials. This study (a) provides a picture of the different activities, structural requirements and resources dedicated to the operation of the local IEC in Italy; (b) defines a detailed list of "centre-specific" documents considered as essential by the IEC for issuing its opinion and (c) suggests a "single document" to reduce the variability of the "centre-specific" documents required by the IEC. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Poland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 25% |
Student > Bachelor | 1 | 25% |
Researcher | 1 | 25% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 25% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Philosophy | 1 | 25% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 25% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 25% |
Engineering | 1 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 26 November 2012.
All research outputs
#15,256,901
of 22,687,320 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#129,945
of 193,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,468
of 183,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,991
of 4,904 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,687,320 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,653 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 183,506 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,904 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.