↓ Skip to main content


Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, January 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 Wikipedia page


31 Dimensions

Readers on

105 Mendeley
3 CiteULike
1 Connotea
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.
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, January 2006
DOI 10.1186/1472-6939-7-4
Pubmed ID

Christiane Auray-Blais, Johane Patenaude


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 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
Canada 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 97 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Student > Master 13 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 24 23%
Unknown 12 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 27%
Social Sciences 16 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 17 16%

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
of 12,373,815 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
of 526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 299,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,815 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 526 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 299,816 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 65% of its contemporaries.
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.