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 |
Delays in reporting and publishing trial results during pandemics: cross sectional analysis of 2009 H1N1, 2014 Ebola, and 2016 Zika clinical trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-021-01324-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher W. Jones, Amanda C. Adams, Elizabeth Murphy, Rachel P. King, Benjamin Saracco, Karen R. Stesis, Susan Cavanaugh, Brian W. Roberts, Timothy F. Platts-Mills |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Taiwan | 1 | 10% |
| United States | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 8 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 70% |
| Scientists | 2 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 16% |
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 21% |
| Unknown | 6 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 16% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 16% |
| Unknown | 6 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 16 February 2023.
All research outputs
#5,881,441
of 24,273,038 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#818
of 2,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,044
of 436,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#21
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,273,038 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,155 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 436,138 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 49 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 59% of its contemporaries.