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 |
How Well Do Randomized Trials Inform Decision Making: Systematic Review Using Comparative Effectiveness Research Measures on Acupuncture for Back Pain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, February 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0032399 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claudia M. Witt, Eric Manheimer, Richard Hammerschlag, Rainer Lüdtke, Lixing Lao, Sean R. Tunis, Brian M. Berman |
| Abstract |
For Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) there is a need to develop scales for appraisal of available clinical research. Aims were to 1) test the feasibility of applying the pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary tool and the six CER defining characteristics of the Institute of Medicine to RCTs of acupuncture for treatment of low back pain, and 2) evaluate the extent to which the evidence from these RCTs is relevant to clinical and health policy decision making. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 115 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 25 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 10% |
| Researcher | 11 | 9% |
| Other | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 34 | 28% |
| Unknown | 14 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 59 | 49% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 9% |
| Unknown | 17 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 19 October 2013.
All research outputs
#13,870,800
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#111,745
of 193,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,861
of 155,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,843
of 3,552 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,562 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 155,519 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,552 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.