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 |
Evaluating harm associated with anti-malarial drugs: a survey of methods used by clinical researchers to elicit, assess and record participant-reported adverse events and related data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Malaria Journal, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1475-2875-12-325 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elizabeth N Allen, Clare IR Chandler, Nyaradzo Mandimika, Cheryl Pace, Ushma Mehta, Karen I Barnes |
| Abstract |
Participant reports of medical histories, adverse events (AE) and non-study drugs are integral to evaluating harm in clinical research. However, interpreting or synthesizing results is complicated if studies use different methods for ascertaining and assessing these data. To explore how these data are obtained in malaria drug studies, a descriptive online survey of clinical researchers was conducted during 2012 and 2013. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 45 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 15% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 7 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 34% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 9 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 March 2021.
All research outputs
#15,900,318
of 24,400,706 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#4,427
of 5,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,231
of 184,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#53
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,400,706 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 184,252 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.