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 |
Message to complementary and alternative medicine: evidence is a better friend than power
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, May 2001
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6882-1-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrew J Vickers |
| Abstract |
Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is being embraced by an increasing number of practitioners and advocates of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). A significant constituency within CAM, however, appears to have substantive doubts about EBM and some are expressly hostile. Many of the arguments raised against EBM within the CAM community are based on a caricature radically at odds with established, accepted and published principles of EBM practice. Contrary to what has sometimes been argued, EBM is not cookbook medicine that ignores individual needs. Neither does EBM mandate that only proven therapies should be used. Before EBM, decisions on health care tended to be based on tradition, power and influence. Such modes usually act to the disadvantage of marginal groups. By placing CAM on an equal footing with conventional medicine - what matters for both is evidence of effectiveness - EBM provides an opportunity for CAM to find an appropriate and just place in health care. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 42 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 37% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Researcher | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 22% |
| Unknown | 4 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 63% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 3 | 7% |
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 03 June 2010.
All research outputs
#7,459,696
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#1,239
of 3,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,147
of 40,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 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 3,630 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 40,149 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.