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 |
Rationale and protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis on reduced data gathering in people with delusions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-3-44 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter Taylor, Paul Hutton, Robert Dudley |
| Abstract |
The tendency to form conclusions based on limited evidence is known as the 'jumping to conclusions' (JTC) bias, and has been a much studied phenomena in individuals with psychosis. Previous reviews have supported the hypothesis that a JTC bias is particularly linked to the formation and maintenance of delusions. A new systematic review is required as a number of studies have since been published, and older reviews are limited by not systematically assessing methodological quality or the role of study design in influencing effect size estimates. This review aimed to investigate if there is an association between psychosis or delusions and JTC bias. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 39 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 15% |
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 27% |
| Unknown | 9 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 13 | 32% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 20% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 11 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 January 2015.
All research outputs
#13,409,212
of 22,756,196 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,417
of 1,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,881
of 227,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#16
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,756,196 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,990 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 227,623 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.