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 |
Should comparative effectiveness research ignore industry-funded data?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.2217/cer.14.31 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adam G Dunn, Enrico Coiera |
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% |
| Australia | 4 | 22% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 6% |
| Italy | 1 | 6% |
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 5 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 61% |
| Scientists | 4 | 22% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 31% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 15% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 15% |
| Librarian | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 31% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 8% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 25 January 2018.
All research outputs
#1,042,794
of 24,032,151 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
#15
of 783 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,519
of 231,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,032,151 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 783 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 231,894 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.