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 |
Improving quality of care for persons with diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews - what does the evidence tell us?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-2-26 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Julia Worswick, S Carolyn Wayne, Rachel Bennett, Michelle Fiander, Alain Mayhew, Michelle C Weir, Katrina J Sullivan, Jeremy M Grimshaw |
| Abstract |
Ensuring high quality care for persons with diabetes remains a challenge for healthcare systems globally with consistent evidence of suboptimal care and outcomes. There is increasing interest in quality improvement strategies to improve diabetes management as reflected by a growing number of systematic reviews. These reviews are of varying quality and dispersed across many sources. In this paper, we present an overview of systematic reviews evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of diabetes care. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 | 5 | 26% |
| India | 1 | 5% |
| Ireland | 1 | 5% |
| Canada | 1 | 5% |
| Norway | 1 | 5% |
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 53% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 26% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 16% |
| Scientists | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 207 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 201 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 42 | 20% |
| Researcher | 32 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 18 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 15 | 7% |
| Other | 49 | 24% |
| Unknown | 32 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 78 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 25 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 5% |
| Psychology | 11 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 30 | 14% |
| Unknown | 45 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 18 February 2020.
All research outputs
#2,752,718
of 24,041,016 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#482
of 2,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,074
of 196,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#5
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,041,016 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,091 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 196,224 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.