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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
Title |
Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) from the patient's perspective
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of Medical Ethics, November 2012
|
DOI | 10.1136/medethics-2012-101195 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Julie K Hersh |
Abstract |
This is a response to Dr Charlotte Rosalind Blease's paper 'Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT), the Placebo Effect and Informed Consent', written by Julie K. Hersh who has had ECT. Hersh argues that placebo effect is impossible to prove without endangering the lives of participants in the study. In addition, informing potential ECT patients of unproven placebo effect could discourage patients from using a procedure that from experience has proven highly effective. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 | 5 | 26% |
United Kingdom | 3 | 16% |
Germany | 2 | 11% |
Australia | 2 | 11% |
Ireland | 1 | 5% |
Mexico | 1 | 5% |
Unknown | 5 | 26% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 13 | 68% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 21% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
New Zealand | 1 | 2% |
Spain | 1 | 2% |
France | 1 | 2% |
Canada | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 55 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 10 | 17% |
Student > Bachelor | 9 | 15% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 12% |
Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 12% |
Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
Other | 14 | 24% |
Unknown | 6 | 10% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 34% |
Psychology | 16 | 27% |
Neuroscience | 7 | 12% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
Other | 4 | 7% |
Unknown | 7 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 20 February 2013.
All research outputs
#2,319,709
of 22,687,320 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Ethics
#974
of 3,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,466
of 277,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Ethics
#6
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,687,320 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,401 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 277,026 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.