↓ Skip to main content

RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
95 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
380 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
366 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses
Published in
BMC Medicine, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-11-21
Pubmed ID
Authors

Geoff Wong, Trish Greenhalgh, Gill Westhorp, Jeanette Buckingham, Ray Pawson

Abstract

There is growing interest in realist synthesis as an alternative systematic review method. This approach offers the potential to expand the knowledge base in policy-relevant areas - for example, by explaining the success, failure or mixed fortunes of complex interventions. No previous publication standards exist for reporting realist syntheses. This standard was developed as part of the RAMESES (Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) project. The project's aim is to produce preliminary publication standards for realist systematic reviews.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 95 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 366 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 17 5%
Canada 4 1%
United States 4 1%
Australia 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Other 4 1%
Unknown 331 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 92 25%
Researcher 78 21%
Student > Master 57 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 19 5%
Other 18 5%
Other 77 21%
Unknown 25 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 114 31%
Social Sciences 79 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 10%
Psychology 24 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 17 5%
Other 40 11%
Unknown 56 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 70. 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 02 October 2019.
All research outputs
#262,594
of 14,079,291 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#223
of 2,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,485
of 243,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,079,291 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,206 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.5. 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 243,356 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them