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 |
Clinical ethics revisited
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, April 2001
|
DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-2-1 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Peter A Singer, Edmund D Pellegrino, Mark Siegler |
Abstract |
A decade ago, we reviewed the field of clinical ethics; assessed its progress in research, education, and ethics committees and consultation; and made predictions about the future of the field. In this article, we revisit clinical ethics to examine our earlier observations, highlight key developments, and discuss remaining challenges for clinical ethics, including the need to develop a global perspective on clinical ethics problems. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Saudi Arabia | 2 | 40% |
Canada | 1 | 20% |
Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 126 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 6% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 6% |
Researcher | 6 | 5% |
Student > Bachelor | 6 | 5% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 4% |
Other | 12 | 10% |
Unknown | 82 | 65% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 13% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 6% |
Psychology | 4 | 3% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 2% |
Other | 10 | 8% |
Unknown | 83 | 66% |
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 12 June 2020.
All research outputs
#4,455,822
of 22,710,079 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#439
of 991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,097
of 40,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,710,079 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 40,287 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them