The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 |
How Should Trainee Autonomy and Oversight Be Managed in the Setting of Overlapping Surgery?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The AMA Journal of Ethic, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1001/journalofethics.2018.20.4.ecas3-1804 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jean-Nicolas Gallant, Alexander Langerman |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 25% |
| Japan | 1 | 8% |
| Canada | 1 | 8% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 58% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 17% |
| Scientists | 2 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 21% |
| Other | 3 | 21% |
| Librarian | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 21% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 6 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 June 2024.
All research outputs
#5,001,796
of 26,188,345 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#1,238
of 2,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,861
of 347,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#26
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,188,345 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,799 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 347,360 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.