↓ Skip to main content

Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 4th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
37 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: 4th annual update to a systematic review of core outcome sets for research
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0209869
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth Gargon, Sarah L. Gorst, Nicola L. Harman, Valerie Smith, Karen Matvienko-Sikar, Paula R. Williamson

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 14%
Librarian 3 10%
Other 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Professor 3 10%
Other 8 28%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 11 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 29 January 2019.
All research outputs
#1,444,145
of 23,120,280 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#18,749
of 197,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,832
of 437,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#378
of 3,032 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,120,280 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 197,281 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 437,310 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,032 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.