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 |
Ethics, Evidence Based Sports Medicine, and the Use of Platelet Rich Plasma in the English Premier League
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Care Analysis, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10728-017-0345-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. J. McNamee, C. M. Coveney, A. Faulkner, J. Gabe |
| Abstract |
The use of platelet rich plasma (PRP) as a novel treatment is discussed in the context of a qualitative research study comprising 38 interviews with sports medicine practitioners and other stakeholders working within the English Premier League during the 2013-16 seasons. Analysis of the data produced several overarching themes: conservatism versus experimentalism in medical attitudes; therapy perspectives divergence; conflicting versions of appropriate evidence; subcultures; community beliefs/practices; and negotiation of medical decision-making. The contested evidence base for the efficacy of PRP is presented in the context of a broader professional shift towards evidence based medicine within sports medicine. Many of the participants while accepting this shift are still committed to casuistic practices where clinical judgment is flexible and does not recognize a context-free hierarchy of evidentiary standards to ethically justifiable practice. We also discuss a tendency in the data collected to consider the use of deceptive, placebo-like, practices among the clinician participants that challenge dominant understandings of informed consent in medical ethics. We conclude that the complex relation between evidence and ethics requires greater critical scrutiny for this emerging specialism within the medical community. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 | 5 | 28% |
| United States | 3 | 17% |
| Japan | 1 | 6% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 6% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 72% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 11% |
| Scientists | 2 | 11% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 75 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 16% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 9% |
| Researcher | 5 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 29 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 20% |
| Sports and Recreations | 9 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 32 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 03 November 2018.
All research outputs
#3,002,991
of 25,067,172 outputs
Outputs from Health Care Analysis
#49
of 318 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,827
of 322,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Care Analysis
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,067,172 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 318 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. 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 322,073 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 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