↓ Skip to main content

Revising ethical guidance for the evaluation of programmes and interventions not initiated by researchers

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Ethics, September 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
66 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions
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
Revising ethical guidance for the evaluation of programmes and interventions not initiated by researchers
Published in
Journal of Medical Ethics, September 2019
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2018-105263
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samuel I Watson, Mary Dixon-Woods, Celia A Taylor, Emily B Wroe, Elizabeth L Dunbar, Peter J Chilton, Richard J Lilford

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 66 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. 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 October 2019.
All research outputs
#463,652
of 13,755,459 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Ethics
#142
of 2,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,233
of 249,893 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Ethics
#3
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,755,459 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,469 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. 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 249,893 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 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.