↓ Skip to main content

What counts as reliable evidence for public health policy: the case of circumcision for preventing HIV infection

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2011
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 (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
17 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
What counts as reliable evidence for public health policy: the case of circumcision for preventing HIV infection
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-11-34
Pubmed ID
Authors

Reidar K Lie, Franklin G Miller

Abstract

There is an ongoing controversy over the relative merits of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized observational studies in assessing efficacy and guiding policy. In this paper we examine male circumcision to prevent HIV infection as a case study that can illuminate the appropriate role of different types of evidence for public health interventions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
Chile 1 4%
Unknown 21 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 22%
Researcher 3 13%
Lecturer 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 52%
Social Sciences 4 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 1 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 18 February 2019.
All research outputs
#1,262,861
of 14,346,625 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#208
of 1,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,973
of 88,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,346,625 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,320 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 88,531 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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