↓ Skip to main content

Psychological interventions for people with psychotic experiences: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, May 2019
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 (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
25 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Psychological interventions for people with psychotic experiences: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Systematic Reviews, May 2019
DOI 10.1186/s13643-019-1041-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emma Soneson, Debra Russo, Clare Knight, Louise Lafortune, Margaret Heslin, Jan Stochl, Alex Georgiadis, Julieta Galante, Robbie Duschinsky, Nick Grey, Leticia Gonzalez-Blanco, Juliet Couche, Michelle Griffiths, Hannah Murray, Nesta Reeve, Joanne Hodgekins, Paul French, David Fowler, Sarah Byford, Mary Dixon-Woods, Peter B. Jones, Jesus Perez

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 tweeters 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 21%
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Researcher 5 12%
Unspecified 4 9%
Lecturer 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 8 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 14%
Unspecified 4 9%
Neuroscience 3 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 9 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 24 August 2020.
All research outputs
#1,257,731
of 15,909,509 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#241
of 1,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,264
of 268,881 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,909,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,411 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 268,881 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them