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 |
Factors explaining the heterogeneity of effects of patient decision aids on knowledge of outcome probabilities: a systematic review sub-analysis
|
---|---|
Published in |
Systematic Reviews, October 2013
|
DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-2-95 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Stephen J Gentles, Dawn Stacey, Carol Bennett, Mohamad Alshurafa, Stephen D Walter |
Abstract |
There is considerable unexplained heterogeneity in previous meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of patient decision aids on the accuracy of knowledge of outcome probabilities. The purpose of this review was to explore possible effect modification by three covariates: the type of control intervention, decision aid quality and patients' baseline knowledge of probabilities. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 2 | 25% |
Comoros | 1 | 13% |
Netherlands | 1 | 13% |
United States | 1 | 13% |
Unknown | 3 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 50% |
Members of the public | 4 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Mexico | 1 | 2% |
Canada | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 46 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 11 | 23% |
Student > Master | 8 | 17% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 13% |
Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 6% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 6% |
Other | 10 | 21% |
Unknown | 7 | 15% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 35% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 8% |
Psychology | 4 | 8% |
Social Sciences | 3 | 6% |
Computer Science | 2 | 4% |
Other | 8 | 17% |
Unknown | 10 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 04 January 2014.
All research outputs
#6,427,323
of 24,512,028 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,199
of 2,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,322
of 217,311 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#15
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,512,028 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,132 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 217,311 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.