| 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 |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 9 | 75% |
| Czechia | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 2 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 67% |
| Scientists | 2 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 17% |
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 > Bachelor | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 10% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Researcher | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 17% |
| Unknown | 29 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 17% |
| Unknown | 31 | 38% |
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 11 September 2023.
All research outputs
#1,980,168
of 25,460,914 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
#130
of 1,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,604
of 429,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
#4
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,460,914 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 1,570 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 429,822 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.