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 |
Mothers’ perceptions of their child’s enrollment in a randomized clinical trial: Poor understanding, vulnerability and contradictory feelings
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-14-52 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adriana Assis Carvalho, Luciane Rezende Costa |
| Abstract |
Little is known about the views of mothers when their children are invited to participate in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating medicines and/or invasive procedures. Our goal was to understand mothers' perceptions of the processes of informed consent and randomization in a RCT that divided uncooperative children into three intervention groups (physical restraint, sedation, and general anesthesia) for dental rehabilitation. |
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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Peru | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 101 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 13% |
| Researcher | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 16 | 16% |
| Unknown | 35 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 35% |
| Psychology | 8 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Unknown | 36 | 35% |
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 December 2013.
All research outputs
#19,292,491
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#914
of 1,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,250
of 312,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#21
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,009 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 312,886 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.