↓ Skip to main content

The problem with composite indicators

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Quality & Safety, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
97 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
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.
Title
The problem with composite indicators
Published in
BMJ Quality & Safety, August 2018
DOI 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-007798
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew Barclay, Mary Dixon-Woods, Georgios Lyratzopoulos

Abstract

'The Problem with…' series covers controversial topics related to efforts to improve healthcare quality, including widely recommended but deceptively difficult strategies for improvement and pervasive problems that seem to resist solution.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 97 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 21%
Other 6 15%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 9 23%
Unknown 4 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 41%
Social Sciences 7 18%
Engineering 3 8%
Environmental Science 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 7 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 65. 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 15 July 2019.
All research outputs
#278,877
of 13,887,146 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Quality & Safety
#187
of 1,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,971
of 273,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Quality & Safety
#12
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,887,146 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,404 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 273,176 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.