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 |
“Best fit” framework synthesis: refining the method
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-13-37 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher Carroll, Andrew Booth, Joanna Leaviss, Jo Rick |
| Abstract |
Following publication of the first worked example of the "best fit" method of evidence synthesis for the systematic review of qualitative evidence in this journal, the originators of the method identified a need to specify more fully some aspects of this particular derivative of framework synthesis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 2 | 50% |
| South Africa | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 444 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 434 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 80 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 72 | 16% |
| Researcher | 60 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 24 | 5% |
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 5% |
| Other | 77 | 17% |
| Unknown | 107 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 100 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 55 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 47 | 11% |
| Psychology | 33 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 22 | 5% |
| Other | 60 | 14% |
| Unknown | 127 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 14 December 2022.
All research outputs
#3,648,859
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#565
of 2,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,729
of 196,471 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#7
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,026 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. 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 196,471 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.