↓ Skip to main content
What is this page? Embed badge

Current use of medical eponyms – a need for global uniformity in scientific publications

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 tweeters
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Summary Blogs Twitter Wikipedia Video Dimensions citations
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.
Title
Current use of medical eponyms – a need for global uniformity in scientific publications
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2009
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-9-18
Pubmed ID
19272131
Authors

Narayan Jana, Sukumar Barik, Nalini Arora

Abstract

Although eponyms are widely used in medicine, they arbitrarily alternate between the possessive and nonpossessive forms. As very little is known regarding extent and distribution of this variation, the present study was planned to assess current use of eponymous term taking "Down syndrome" and "Down's syndrome" as an example.

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Russia 1 4%
Unknown 26 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 19%
Other 5 19%
Student > Master 4 15%
Lecturer 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 6 22%
Unknown 3 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 37%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 11%
Linguistics 3 11%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 5 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 May 2022.
All research outputs
#1,782,584
of 23,926,844 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#234
of 2,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,148
of 95,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,926,844 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,115 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 95,103 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.

This page is provided by Altmetric.