↓ Skip to main content

Reasons for and against participation in studies of medicinal therapies for women with breast cancer: a debate

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Reasons for and against participation in studies of medicinal therapies for women with breast cancer: a debate
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-12-25
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gero Luschin, Marion Habersack, Irmina-Anna Gerlich

Abstract

A special challenge for research studies of breast cancer among females is low patient participation rates. We compiled this systematic review to identify reasons why women with, or at high risk of, breast cancer do or do not participate in medicinal studies of breast cancer.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 6%
United States 1 6%
Unknown 16 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 28%
Student > Master 4 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Other 3 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 39%
Psychology 3 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 11%
Unspecified 1 6%
Other 3 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 02 April 2012.
All research outputs
#6,432,324
of 12,373,180 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#578
of 1,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,902
of 116,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#3
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,095 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 116,578 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 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.