↓ Skip to main content

The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#10 of 2,102)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
37 news outlets
blogs
29 blogs
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
610 tweeters
facebook
24 Facebook pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
746 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
805 Mendeley
citeulike
6 CiteULike
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.
Title
The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research
Published in
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, December 2011
DOI 10.1258/jrsm.2011.110180
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zoë Slote Morris, Steven Wooding, Jonathan Grant

Abstract

This study aimed to review the literature describing and quantifying time lags in the health research translation process. Papers were included in the review if they quantified time lags in the development of health interventions. The study identified 23 papers. Few were comparable as different studies use different measures, of different things, at different time points. We concluded that the current state of knowledge of time lags is of limited use to those responsible for R&D and knowledge transfer who face difficulties in knowing what they should or can do to reduce time lags. This effectively 'blindfolds' investment decisions and risks wasting effort. The study concludes that understanding lags first requires agreeing models, definitions and measures, which can be applied in practice. A second task would be to develop a process by which to gather these data.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 610 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 805 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 11 1%
United Kingdom 11 1%
Canada 3 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Denmark 2 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Other 5 <1%
Unknown 766 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 141 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 140 17%
Student > Master 123 15%
Other 74 9%
Student > Bachelor 66 8%
Other 186 23%
Unknown 75 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 261 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 89 11%
Social Sciences 66 8%
Psychology 60 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 42 5%
Other 162 20%
Unknown 125 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 866. 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 20 May 2020.
All research outputs
#7,278
of 15,117,383 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
#10
of 2,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39
of 136,017 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
#1
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,117,383 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,102 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 136,017 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 92% of its contemporaries.