↓ Skip to main content

How is organ transplantation depicted in internal medicine and transplantation journals

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
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.
Title
How is organ transplantation depicted in internal medicine and transplantation journals
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6939-14-39
Pubmed ID
Authors

Céline Durand, Andrée Duplantie, Yves Chabot, Hubert Doucet, Marie-Chantal Fortin

Abstract

In their book Spare Parts, published in 1992, Fox and Swazey criticized various aspects of organ transplantation, including the routinization of the procedure, ignorance regarding its inherent uncertainties, and the ethos of transplant professionals. Using this work as a frame of reference, we analyzed articles on organ transplantation published in internal medicine and transplantation journals between 1995 and 2008 to see whether Fox and Swazey's critiques of organ transplantation were still relevant.

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.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 26%
Researcher 3 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Student > Master 3 11%
Other 2 7%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 5 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 22%
Psychology 3 11%
Philosophy 2 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 7%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Other 6 22%
Unknown 6 22%

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 02 October 2013.
All research outputs
#2,906,367
of 3,627,387 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#201
of 218 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,019
of 93,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#14
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,627,387 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 218 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. 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 93,141 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 14 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.