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 |
Comparison of two alternative study designs in assessment of medicines utilisation in neonates
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-14-89 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Georgi Nellis, Irja Lutsar, Heili Varendi, Karolin Toompere, Mark A Turner, Jennifer Duncan, Tuuli Metsvaht |
| Abstract |
Estimates of prevalence are known to be affected by the design of cross-sectional studies. A pan-European study provided an opportunity to compare the effect of two cross-sectional study designs on estimates of medicines use. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 11% |
| Professor | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 21% |
| Unknown | 4 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 47% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 16% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 5% |
| Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 26% |
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 16 July 2014.
All research outputs
#14,782,907
of 22,758,963 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,438
of 2,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,526
of 226,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#16
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,963 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,009 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 226,891 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.