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 |
Does technique matter; a pilot study exploring weighting techniques for a multi-criteria decision support framework
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1478-7547-12-22 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Janine van Til, Catharina Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Marijke Lieferink, James Dolan, Mireille Goetghebeur |
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 States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 116 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 17% |
| Researcher | 21 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 22 | 18% |
| Unknown | 19 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 11% |
| Engineering | 12 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 10 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 47 | 39% |
| Unknown | 25 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 December 2014.
All research outputs
#14,914,476
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#312
of 533 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,803
of 369,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 533 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 369,879 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.