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 |
Animal derived products may conflict with religious patients’ beliefs
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-14-48 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Axelina Eriksson, Jakob Burcharth, Jacob Rosenberg |
| Abstract |
Implants and drugs with animal and human derived content are widely used in medicine and surgery, but information regarding ingredients is rarely obtainable by health practitioners. A religious perspective concerning the use of animal and human derived drug ingredients has not thoroughly been investigated. The purpose of this study was to clarify which parts of the medical and surgical treatments offered in western world-hospitals that conflicts with believers of major religions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 States | 3 | 25% |
| Egypt | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 8 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 92% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 142 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 8% |
| Researcher | 10 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 26 | 18% |
| Unknown | 51 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 20% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 6 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 35 | 24% |
| Unknown | 56 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 08 June 2022.
All research outputs
#1,917,987
of 24,981,585 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#175
of 1,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,425
of 320,795 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#3
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,981,585 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,084 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
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 320,795 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.