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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Comparative effectiveness research on patients with acute ischemic stroke using Markov decision processes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-12-23 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Darong Wu, Yefeng Cai, Jianxiong Cai, Qiuli Liu, Yuanqi Zhao, Jingheng Cai, Min Zhao, Yonghui Huang, Liuer Ye, Yubo Lu, Xianping Guo |
| Abstract |
Several methodological issues with non-randomized comparative clinical studies have been raised, one of which is whether the methods used can adequately identify uncertainties that evolve dynamically with time in real-world systems. The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of different combinations of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) treatments and combinations of TCM and Western medicine interventions in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) by using Markov decision process (MDP) theory. MDP theory appears to be a promising new method for use in comparative effectiveness research. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 36 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 25% |
| Researcher | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 9 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 28% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 25% |
| Unknown | 9 | 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 17 November 2012.
All research outputs
#15,278,165
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,502
of 2,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,110
of 156,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#21
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,004 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 156,382 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.