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 |
Challenges of synthesizing medical education research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-014-0193-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rachel H Ellaway |
| Abstract |
The expectation that the primary function of systematic reviews in medical education is to guide the development of professional practice requires basic standards to make the reports of these reviews more useful to evidence-based practice and to allow for further meta-syntheses. However, medical education research is a field rather than a discipline, one that brings together multiple methodological and philosophical approaches and one that struggles to establish coherence because of this plurality. Gordon and Gibbs have entered the fray with their common framework for reporting systematic reviews in medical education independent of their theoretical or methodological focus, which raises questions regarding the specificity of medical education research and how their framework differs from other systematic review reporting frameworks. The STORIES (STructured apprOach to the Reporting In healthcare education of Evidence Synthesis) framework will need to be tested in practice and potentially it will need to be adjusted to accommodate emerging issues and concerns. Nevertheless, as systematic reviews fulfill a greater role in evidence-based practice then STORIES or its successors should provide an essential infrastructure through which medical education syntheses can be translated into medical education practice. Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/12/143. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
| South Africa | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 14 | 88% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 2 | 13% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 13% |
| Librarian | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 25% |
| Unknown | 4 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 50% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 31 October 2014.
All research outputs
#14,203,052
of 22,768,097 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,920
of 3,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,138
of 260,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#78
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,768,097 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,413 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.5. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 260,656 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.