↓ Skip to main content

Clinical ethics revisited

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, April 2001
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 (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 Mendeley
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
Clinical ethics revisited
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, April 2001
DOI 10.1186/1472-6939-2-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter A Singer, Edmund D Pellegrino, Mark Siegler

Abstract

A decade ago, we reviewed the field of clinical ethics; assessed its progress in research, education, and ethics committees and consultation; and made predictions about the future of the field. In this article, we revisit clinical ethics to examine our earlier observations, highlight key developments, and discuss remaining challenges for clinical ethics, including the need to develop a global perspective on clinical ethics problems.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 126 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Student > Bachelor 5 4%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 3%
Researcher 4 3%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 94 75%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 10%
Psychology 4 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 94 75%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 12 June 2020.
All research outputs
#2,844,673
of 15,427,132 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#305
of 678 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,415
of 156,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,427,132 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 678 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 156,900 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 81% 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