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 |
The risk-benefit task of research ethics committees: An evaluation of current approaches and the need to incorporate decision studies methods
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-13-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rosemarie D L C Bernabe, Ghislaine J M W van Thiel, Jan A M Raaijmakers, Johannes J M van Delden |
| Abstract |
Research ethics committees (RECs) are tasked to assess the risks and the benefits of a trial. Currently, two procedure-level approaches are predominant, the Net Risk Test and the Component Analysis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 2 | 2% |
| Mozambique | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 102 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 28 | 26% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 15% |
| Researcher | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 25 | 23% |
| Unknown | 18 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 6% |
| Philosophy | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 25 | 23% |
| Unknown | 26 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 May 2012.
All research outputs
#17,489,487
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#925
of 1,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,282
of 174,447 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,117 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 174,447 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.