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 |
The ethical decisions UK doctors make regarding advanced cancer patients at the end of life - the perceived (in) appropriateness of anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism: A qualitative study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-13-22 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laura Sheard, Hayley Prout, Dawn Dowding, Simon Noble, Ian Watt, Anthony Maraveyas, Miriam Johnson |
| Abstract |
Cancer patients are at risk of developing blood clots in their veins - venous thromboembolism (VTE) - which often takes the form of a pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis. The risk increases with advanced disease. Evidence based treatment is low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) by daily subcutaneous injection. The aim of this research is to explore the barriers for doctors in the UK when diagnosing and treating advanced cancer patients with VTE. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 96 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 20% |
| Researcher | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 10% |
| Other | 9 | 9% |
| Other | 18 | 18% |
| Unknown | 19 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 12% |
| Psychology | 6 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Unknown | 24 | 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 20 March 2018.
All research outputs
#6,179,108
of 22,919,505 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#530
of 994 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,092
of 169,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,919,505 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 994 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 169,401 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.