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 |
Translational ethics: an analytical framework of translational movements between theory and practice and a sketch of a comprehensive approach
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-15-71 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kristine Bærøe |
| Abstract |
Translational research in medicine requires researchers to identify the steps to transfer basic scientific discoveries from laboratory benches to bedside decision-making, and eventually into clinical practice. On a parallel track, philosophical work in ethics has not been obliged to identify the steps to translate theoretical conclusions into adequate practice. The medical ethicist A. Cribb suggested some years ago that it is now time to debate 'the business of translational' in medical ethics. Despite the very interesting and useful perspective on the field of medical ethics launched by Cribb, the debate is still missing. In this paper, I take up Cribb's invitation and discuss further analytic distinctions needed to base an ethics aiming to translate between theory and practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 33 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 12% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Professor | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 11 | 32% |
| Unknown | 7 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 12% |
| Philosophy | 3 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 8 | 24% |
| Unknown | 7 | 21% |
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 10 December 2014.
All research outputs
#14,201,538
of 22,765,347 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#749
of 991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,730
of 252,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#10
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,765,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 252,706 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.