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 |
Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: the eMERGe reporting guidance
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-018-0600-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emma F. France, Maggie Cunningham, Nicola Ring, Isabelle Uny, Edward A. S. Duncan, Ruth G. Jepson, Margaret Maxwell, Rachel J. Roberts, Ruth L. Turley, Andrew Booth, Nicky Britten, Kate Flemming, Ian Gallagher, Ruth Garside, Karin Hannes, Simon Lewin, George W. Noblit, Catherine Pope, James Thomas, Meredith Vanstone, Gina M. A. Higginbottom, Jane Noyes |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 46 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 19 | 41% |
| Ireland | 2 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| South Africa | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Guinea | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 19 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 29 | 63% |
| Scientists | 13 | 28% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 214 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 214 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 11% |
| Researcher | 21 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 5% |
| Other | 41 | 19% |
| Unknown | 75 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 27 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 12% |
| Psychology | 26 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 9% |
| Engineering | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 28 | 13% |
| Unknown | 80 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 18 March 2024.
All research outputs
#1,212,830
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#127
of 2,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,533
of 449,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#7
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,312 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 449,411 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.