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 |
Digital tools in the informed consent process: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, February 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12910-021-00585-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Francesco Gesualdo, Margherita Daverio, Laura Palazzani, Dimitris Dimitriou, Javier Diez-Domingo, Jaime Fons-Martinez, Sally Jackson, Pascal Vignally, Caterina Rizzo, Alberto Eugenio Tozzi |
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 | 4 | 33% |
| Australia | 1 | 8% |
| Brazil | 1 | 8% |
| Finland | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 42% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 119 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 13% |
| Unknown | 52 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 16 | 13% |
| Unknown | 53 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 13 March 2021.
All research outputs
#4,964,901
of 24,762,960 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#494
of 1,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,853
of 424,841 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#17
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,762,960 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,069 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 424,841 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.