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 |
Informing Evidence-Based Decision-Making for Patients with Comorbidity: Availability of Necessary Information in Clinical Trials for Chronic Diseases
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0041601 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cynthia M. Boyd, Daniela Vollenweider, Milo A. Puhan |
| Abstract |
The population with multiple chronic conditions is growing. Prior studies indicate that patients with comorbidities are frequently excluded from trials but do not address whether information is available in trials to draw conclusions about treatment effects for these patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 22% |
| Egypt | 2 | 22% |
| Chile | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 56% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 166 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 36 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 31 | 18% |
| Unknown | 33 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 68 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 31 | 18% |
| Unknown | 40 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 12 October 2016.
All research outputs
#2,849,908
of 23,743,910 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#36,110
of 202,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,828
of 166,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#607
of 4,048 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,743,910 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 202,634 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 166,197 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 4,048 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.