↓ 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 (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

5 tweeters
1 Wikipedia page


74 Dimensions

Readers on

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

Peter A Singer, Edmund D Pellegrino, Mark Siegler


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 > Bachelor 6 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Researcher 5 4%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 3%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 91 72%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Psychology 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 92 73%

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
of 16,368,211 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
of 730 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 158,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,368,211 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 730 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 158,500 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 80% 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