↓ Skip to main content

Erratum to: Do personalised e-mail invitations increase the response rates of breast cancer survivors invited to participate in a web-based behaviour change intervention? A quasi-randomised 2-arm…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
8 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
Erratum to: Do personalised e-mail invitations increase the response rates of breast cancer survivors invited to participate in a web-based behaviour change intervention? A quasi-randomised 2-arm controlled trial
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12874-015-0095-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Camille E. Short, Amanda L. Rebar, Corneel Vandelanotte

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 3 38%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 13%
Researcher 1 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 13%
Other 1 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 3 38%
Psychology 1 13%
Arts and Humanities 1 13%
Sports and Recreations 1 13%
Social Sciences 1 13%
Other 1 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 November 2015.
All research outputs
#7,437,671
of 8,604,941 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#793
of 863 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#245,322
of 300,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#21
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,604,941 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 863 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 300,220 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.