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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Stakeholder views regarding ethical issues in the design and conduct of pragmatic trials: study protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, November 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12910-018-0332-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stuart G. Nicholls, Kelly Carroll, Jamie Brehaut, Charles Weijer, Spencer Phillips Hey, Cory E. Goldstein, Merrick Zwarenstein, Ian D. Graham, Joanne E. McKenzie, Lauralyn McIntyre, Vipul Jairath, Marion K. Campbell, Jeremy M. Grimshaw, Dean A. Fergusson, Monica Taljaard |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 4 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 38% |
| Australia | 1 | 13% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
| Scientists | 3 | 38% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 66 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 18% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 21% |
| Unknown | 20 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 6% |
| Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 18% |
| Unknown | 20 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 12 December 2018.
All research outputs
#7,373,652
of 24,289,456 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#613
of 1,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,355
of 445,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#15
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,289,456 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,041 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 445,490 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.