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.
Twitter Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Translating comparative effectiveness of depression medications into practice by comparing the depression medication choice decision aid to usual care: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1745-6215-14-127 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Annie LeBlanc, Amy E Bodde, Megan E Branda, Kathleen J Yost, Jeph Herrin, Mark D Williams, Nilay D Shah, Holly Van Houten, Kari L Ruud, Laurie J Pencille, Victor M Montori |
| Abstract |
Comparative effectiveness research (CER) documents important differences in antidepressants in terms of efficacy, safety, cost, and burden to the patient. Decision aids can adapt this evidence to help patients participate in making informed choices. In turn, antidepressant therapy will more likely reflect patients' values and context, leading to improved adherence and mood outcomes. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 3% |
| Unknown | 149 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 32 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 28 | 18% |
| Unknown | 25 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 48 | 31% |
| Psychology | 23 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 11% |
| Unknown | 35 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 June 2013.
All research outputs
#20,195,024
of 22,712,476 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#5,286
of 5,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,758
of 280,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#227
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,712,476 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,839 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 280,743 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.