↓ Skip to main content
What is this page? Embed badge

Evaluating clinician acceptability of the prototype CanRisk tool for predicting risk of breast and ovarian cancer: A multi-methods study

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2020
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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
18 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
Summary Blogs Twitter Dimensions citations
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
Evaluating clinician acceptability of the prototype CanRisk tool for predicting risk of breast and ovarian cancer: A multi-methods study
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2020
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0229999
Pubmed ID
32142536
Authors

Stephanie Archer, Chantal Babb de Villiers, Fiona Scheibl, Tim Carver, Simon Hartley, Andrew Lee, Alex P. Cunningham, Douglas F. Easton, Jennifer G. McIntosh, Jon Emery, Marc Tischkowitz, Antonis C. Antoniou, Fiona M. Walter

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 17%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Unspecified 5 6%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 24 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Psychology 5 6%
Unspecified 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 30 37%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 15 October 2020.
All research outputs
#1,688,630
of 23,197,711 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#21,635
of 198,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,822
of 362,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#354
of 2,636 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,197,711 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 198,252 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 362,402 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,636 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.

This page is provided by Altmetric.