↓ Skip to main content

Should we screen for atrial fibrillation?

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
Should we screen for atrial fibrillation?
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, June 2017
DOI 10.3399/bjgp17x691613
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark Lown, James Garrard, Greg Irving, Duncan Edwards, FD Richard Hobbs, Jonathan Mant

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 35%
Researcher 3 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 12%
Lecturer 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 2 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 71%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Engineering 1 6%
Unknown 3 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 19 July 2019.
All research outputs
#2,699,546
of 16,033,971 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#1,120
of 3,440 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,978
of 269,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#47
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,033,971 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,440 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 269,053 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.