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 |
O’Connor et al. systematic review regarding animal feeding operations and public health: critical flaws may compromise conclusions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-017-0575-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Keeve E. Nachman, Juleen Lam, Leah H. Schinasi, Tara C. Smith, Beth J. Feingold, Joan A. Casey |
| Abstract |
In this comment, we summarize several scientific concerns with the recently published systematic review from O'Connor and colleagues that examined the relationship between proximity to animal-feeding operations and health of individuals in nearby communities. The authors utilized a bias tool not designed for environmental health research, erroneously excluded important studies, and incorrectly interpreted others. As a result, the conclusions drawn in the review misrepresent the evidence from the published literature, limiting its value to policymakers, researchers, and the public. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 | 6 | 46% |
| Belgium | 1 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 8% |
| China | 1 | 8% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 23% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 69% |
| Scientists | 3 | 23% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 11% |
| Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 19 | 70% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 2 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 4% |
| Engineering | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 20 | 74% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 November 2018.
All research outputs
#3,785,670
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#730
of 2,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,910
of 317,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#18
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,020 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 317,127 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 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 63% of its contemporaries.