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 |
Using logic model methods in systematic review synthesis: describing complex pathways in referral management interventions
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2014
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-14-62 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Susan K Baxter, Lindsay Blank, Helen Buckley Woods, Nick Payne, Melanie Rimmer, Elizabeth Goyder |
Abstract |
There is increasing interest in innovative methods to carry out systematic reviews of complex interventions. Theory-based approaches, such as logic models, have been suggested as a means of providing additional insights beyond that obtained via conventional review methods. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 11 | 38% |
Canada | 4 | 14% |
Australia | 2 | 7% |
Peru | 2 | 7% |
Chile | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 9 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 16 | 55% |
Scientists | 7 | 24% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 17% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
United States | 1 | <1% |
Portugal | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 166 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 31 | 18% |
Student > Master | 29 | 17% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 16% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 6% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 5% |
Other | 36 | 21% |
Unknown | 28 | 16% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 42 | 25% |
Social Sciences | 22 | 13% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 11% |
Psychology | 13 | 8% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 4% |
Other | 29 | 17% |
Unknown | 39 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 11 November 2020.
All research outputs
#1,652,061
of 25,629,945 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#198
of 2,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,965
of 242,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#2
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,629,945 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,304 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 242,341 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.