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 |
Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: a systematic review
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2014
|
DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-14-56 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Sharon Mickan, Helen Atherton, Nia Wyn Roberts, Carl Heneghan, Julie K Tilson |
Abstract |
Many healthcare professionals use smartphones and tablets to inform patient care. Contemporary research suggests that handheld computers may support aspects of clinical diagnosis and management. This systematic review was designed to synthesise high quality evidence to answer the question; Does healthcare professionals' use of handheld computers improve their access to information and support clinical decision making at the point of care? |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 67 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Netherlands | 17 | 25% |
United Kingdom | 14 | 21% |
United States | 4 | 6% |
Spain | 2 | 3% |
Canada | 1 | 1% |
India | 1 | 1% |
Australia | 1 | 1% |
Ghana | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 26 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 44 | 66% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 14 | 21% |
Scientists | 6 | 9% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 222 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 3 | 1% |
Germany | 1 | <1% |
Austria | 1 | <1% |
Egypt | 1 | <1% |
Argentina | 1 | <1% |
Denmark | 1 | <1% |
Spain | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 213 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 36 | 16% |
Student > Master | 35 | 16% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 11% |
Other | 17 | 8% |
Student > Bachelor | 15 | 7% |
Other | 53 | 24% |
Unknown | 42 | 19% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 64 | 29% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 28 | 13% |
Computer Science | 27 | 12% |
Psychology | 14 | 6% |
Social Sciences | 11 | 5% |
Other | 30 | 14% |
Unknown | 48 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. 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 30 December 2014.
All research outputs
#856,731
of 25,413,176 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#23
of 2,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,087
of 242,294 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,413,176 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,141 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 242,294 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 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 99% of its contemporaries.