↓ Skip to main content

The use of mechanistic reasoning in assessing coronavirus interventions

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, July 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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
11 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
Title
The use of mechanistic reasoning in assessing coronavirus interventions
Published in
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, July 2020
DOI 10.1111/jep.13438
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey K. Aronson, Daniel Auker‐Howlett, Virginia Ghiara, Michael P. Kelly, Jon Williamson

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Master 7 12%
Other 6 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 18 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 12%
Psychology 4 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 20 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 14 December 2020.
All research outputs
#1,362,832
of 17,944,974 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
#102
of 1,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,099
of 294,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
#5
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,944,974 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 1,279 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 294,728 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.