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 |
Making sense of complex data: a mapping process for analyzing findings of a realist review on guideline implementability
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2013
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-13-112 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Monika Kastner, Julie Makarski, Leigh Hayden, Lisa Durocher, Ananda Chatterjee, Melissa Brouwers, Onil Bhattacharyya |
Abstract |
Realist reviews offer a rigorous method to analyze heterogeneous data emerging from multiple disciplines as a means to develop new concepts, understand the relationships between them, and identify the evidentiary base underpinning them. However, emerging synthesis methods such as the Realist Review are not well operationalized and may be difficult for the novice researcher to grasp. The objective of this paper is to describe the development of an analytic process to organize and synthesize data from a realist review. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 3 | 6% |
Canada | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 48 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 11 | 21% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 21% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 12% |
Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
Other | 7 | 13% |
Unknown | 8 | 15% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 40% |
Social Sciences | 10 | 19% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 8% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
Computer Science | 2 | 4% |
Other | 3 | 6% |
Unknown | 10 | 19% |
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 13 September 2013.
All research outputs
#21,264,673
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,976
of 2,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,358
of 201,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#22
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 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 2,109 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. 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 201,285 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 22 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.