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 |
A methodological protocol for selecting and quantifying low-value prescribing practices in routinely collected data: an Australian case study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13012-017-0585-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jonathan Brett, Adam G. Elshaug, R. Sacha Bhatia, Kelsey Chalmers, Tim Badgery-Parker, Sallie-Anne Pearson |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 20% |
| Colombia | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 17 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 6% |
| Psychology | 4 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 19% |
| Unknown | 26 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 05 May 2017.
All research outputs
#7,432,670
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,191
of 1,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,017
of 312,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#33
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 312,163 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.