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 |
Does Evidence Support the American Heart Association's Recommendation to Screen Patients for Depression in Cardiovascular Care? An Updated Systematic Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0052654 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Brett D. Thombs, Michelle Roseman, James C. Coyne, Peter de Jonge, Vanessa C. Delisle, Erin Arthurs, Brooke Levis, Roy C. Ziegelstein |
| Abstract |
To systematically review evidence on depression screening in coronary heart disease (CHD) by assessing the (1) accuracy of screening tools; (2) effectiveness of treatment; and (3) effect of screening on depression outcomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 Kingdom | 5 | 38% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| Australia | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 54% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 23% |
| Scientists | 2 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 140 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 16% |
| Researcher | 18 | 13% |
| Other | 12 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 8% |
| Other | 39 | 27% |
| Unknown | 12 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 66 | 46% |
| Psychology | 29 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Decision Sciences | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 11 | 8% |
| Unknown | 21 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 157. 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 25 July 2017.
All research outputs
#251,801
of 24,814,419 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#3,650
of 214,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,709
of 292,907 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#65
of 4,813 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,814,419 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 214,862 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 292,907 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 4,813 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 98% of its contemporaries.