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 |
User needs elicitation via analytic hierarchy process (AHP). A case study on a Computed Tomography (CT) scanner
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-13-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Leandro Pecchia, Jennifer L Martin, Angela Ragozzino, Carmela Vanzanella, Arturo Scognamiglio, Luciano Mirarchi, Stephen P Morgan |
| Abstract |
The rigorous elicitation of user needs is a crucial step for both medical device design and purchasing. However, user needs elicitation is often based on qualitative methods whose findings can be difficult to integrate into medical decision-making. This paper describes the application of AHP to elicit user needs for a new CT scanner for use in a public hospital. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 2 | 50% |
| India | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 75% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 2 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 100 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 18% |
| Researcher | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 10% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 16 | 15% |
| Unknown | 17 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 21 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 10 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 8 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 22 | 21% |
| Unknown | 26 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 24 November 2014.
All research outputs
#13,143,247
of 22,691,736 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#941
of 1,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,000
of 281,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#29
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,691,736 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,980 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 281,029 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.