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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A biobank management model applicable to biomedical research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, April 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-7-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christiane Auray-Blais, Johane Patenaude |
| Abstract |
The work of Research Ethics Boards (REBs), especially when involving genetics research and biobanks, has become more challenging with the growth of biotechnology and biomedical research. Some REBs have even rejected research projects where the use of a biobank with coded samples was an integral part of the study, the greatest fear being the lack of participant protection and uncontrolled use of biological samples or related genetic data. The risks of discrimination and stigmatization are a recurrent issue. In light of the increasing interest in biomedical research and the resulting benefits to the health of participants, it is imperative that practical solutions be found to the problems associated with the management of biobanks: namely, protecting the integrity of the research participants, as well as guaranteeing the security and confidentiality of the participant's information. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 2% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 113 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 29 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 29 | 24% |
| Unknown | 20 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 25% |
| Social Sciences | 18 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 21 | 17% |
| Unknown | 25 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 21 June 2012.
All research outputs
#7,454,951
of 22,790,780 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#616
of 993 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,328
of 66,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,790,780 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 993 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 66,429 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.