↓ Skip to main content

Evidence-based new service package vs. routine service package for smoking cessation to prevent high risk patients from cardiovascular diseases (CVD): study protocol for randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 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
Evidence-based new service package vs. routine service package for smoking cessation to prevent high risk patients from cardiovascular diseases (CVD): study protocol for randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-14-419
Pubmed ID
Authors

Myo Aung, Motoyuki Yuasa, Thaworn Lorga, Saiyud Moolphate, Hiroshi Fukuda, Tsutomu Kitajima, Hirohide Yokokawa, Kazuo Minematsu, Susumu Tanimura, Yoshimune Hiratsuka, Koichi Ono, Prissana Naunboonruang, Payom Thinuan, Sachio Kawai, Yaoyanee Suya, Somboon Chumvicharana, Eiji Marui

Abstract

Smoking cessation is a high-priority intervention to prevent CVD events and deaths in developing countries. While several interventions to stop smoking have been proved successful, the question of how to increase their effectiveness and practicality in developing countries remains. In this study, a newly devised evidence-based smoking cessation service package will be compared with the existing service in a randomized controlled trial within the community setting of Thailand.

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 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 <1%
Cameroon 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 114 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 19%
Researcher 21 18%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 21 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 13%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Psychology 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 27 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 16 February 2017.
All research outputs
#2,251,916
of 9,723,133 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#992
of 2,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,144
of 189,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#36
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,723,133 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,617 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 189,024 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.