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 |
Participant experiences from chronic administration of a multivitamin versus placebo on subjective health and wellbeing: a double-blind qualitative analysis of a randomised controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nutrition Journal, December 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1475-2891-11-110 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jerome Sarris, Katherine H M Cox, David A Camfield, Andrew Scholey, Con Stough, Erin Fogg, Marni Kras, David J White, Avni Sali, Andrew Pipingas |
| Abstract |
While many randomised controlled trials have been conducted on multivitamins, to our knowledge no qualitative research exploring the subjective experience of taking a multivitamin during a clinical trial has been reported. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 | 7 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 21% |
| Greece | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 3 | 21% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 64% |
| Scientists | 3 | 21% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Singapore | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 104 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 24% |
| Researcher | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 22 | 21% |
| Unknown | 22 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 26% |
| Psychology | 16 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 12% |
| Unknown | 27 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 02 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,432,515
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#382
of 1,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,768
of 287,823 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#12
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,530 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 287,823 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 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 65% of its contemporaries.