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 |
Quantifying the Clinical Significance of Cannabis Withdrawal
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0044864 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David J. Allsop, Jan Copeland, Melissa M. Norberg, Shanlin Fu, Anna Molnar, John Lewis, Alan J. Budney |
| Abstract |
Questions over the clinical significance of cannabis withdrawal have hindered its inclusion as a discrete cannabis induced psychiatric condition in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV). This study aims to quantify functional impairment to normal daily activities from cannabis withdrawal, and looks at the factors predicting functional impairment. In addition the study tests the influence of functional impairment from cannabis withdrawal on cannabis use during and after an abstinence attempt. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 71 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 States | 18 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 8 | 11% |
| Canada | 4 | 6% |
| Australia | 3 | 4% |
| Chile | 1 | 1% |
| Sweden | 1 | 1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| India | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 32 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 57 | 80% |
| Scientists | 10 | 14% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 4% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 4% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 155 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 21 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 12% |
| Other | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 39 | 24% |
| Unknown | 31 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 35 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 21% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 19 | 12% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 23 | 14% |
| Unknown | 38 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 104. 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 04 May 2023.
All research outputs
#414,519
of 25,843,331 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#5,823
of 225,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,072
of 191,667 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#71
of 4,415 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,843,331 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 225,388 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 191,667 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,415 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.