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 |
Mortality and cardiovascular and respiratory morbidity in individuals with impaired FEV1 (PURE): an international, community-based cohort study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Lancet Global Health, May 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1016/s2214-109x(19)30070-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
MyLinh Duong, Shofiqul Islam, Sumathy Rangarajan, Darryl Leong, Om Kurmi, Koon Teo, Kieran Killian, Gilles Dagenais, Scott Lear, Andreas Wielgosz, Sanjeev Nair, Viswanathan Mohan, Prem Mony, Rajeev Gupta, Rajesh Kumar, Omar Rahman, Khalid Yusoff, Johannes Lodewykus du Plessis, Ehimario U Igumbor, Jephat Chifamba, Wei Li, Yin Lu, Fumin Zhi, Ruohua Yan, Romaina Iqbal, Noorhassim Ismail, Katarzyna Zatonska, Kubilay Karsidag, Annika Rosengren, Ahmad Bahonar, Afazalhussein Yusufali, Pablo M Lamelas, Alvaro Avezum, Patricio Lopez-Jaramillo, Fernando Lanas, Paul M O'Byrne, Salim Yusuf, PURE investigators |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 79 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 14 | 18% |
| United Kingdom | 7 | 9% |
| United States | 6 | 8% |
| Canada | 5 | 6% |
| Colombia | 4 | 5% |
| Argentina | 3 | 4% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 2 | 3% |
| Ecuador | 2 | 3% |
| Mexico | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 25 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 56 | 71% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 14 | 18% |
| Scientists | 8 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 253 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 253 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 28 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 25 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 25 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 6% |
| Other | 49 | 19% |
| Unknown | 94 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 83 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 8 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 30 | 12% |
| Unknown | 105 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 67. 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 04 April 2023.
All research outputs
#655,481
of 25,907,102 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet Global Health
#541
of 3,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,346
of 365,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet Global Health
#18
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,907,102 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 3,233 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 61.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 365,928 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.