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 |
Reduction of Claustrophobia with Short-Bore versus Open Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Randomized Controlled Trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, August 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0023494 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Judith Enders, Elke Zimmermann, Matthias Rief, Peter Martus, Randolf Klingebiel, Patrick Asbach, Christian Klessen, Gerd Diederichs, Moritz Wagner, Ulf Teichgräber, Thomas Bengner, Bernd Hamm, Marc Dewey |
| Abstract |
Claustrophobia is a common problem precluding MR imaging. The purpose of the present study was to assess whether a short-bore or an open magnetic resonance (MR) scanner is superior in alleviating claustrophobia. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 States | 2 | 29% |
| Germany | 1 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| Italy | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 43% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 43% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 2 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 135 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 30 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 9% |
| Researcher | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 22 | 16% |
| Unknown | 32 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 43 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 13% |
| Psychology | 16 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 21 | 15% |
| Unknown | 34 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 04 September 2020.
All research outputs
#5,842,899
of 22,651,245 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#69,870
of 193,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,402
of 123,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#759
of 2,469 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,651,245 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,366 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 123,827 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,469 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.