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 |
A methodological systematic review of what’s wrong with meta-ethnography reporting
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-14-119 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emma F France, Nicola Ring, Rebecca Thomas, Jane Noyes, Margaret Maxwell, Ruth Jepson |
| Abstract |
Syntheses of qualitative studies can inform health policy, services and our understanding of patient experience. Meta-ethnography is a systematic seven-phase interpretive qualitative synthesis approach well-suited to producing new theories and conceptual models. However, there are concerns about the quality of meta-ethnography reporting, particularly the analysis and synthesis processes. Our aim was to investigate the application and reporting of methods in recent meta-ethnography journal papers, focusing on the analysis and synthesis process and output. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 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 | 19 | 45% |
| Canada | 2 | 5% |
| Australia | 2 | 5% |
| Guinea | 2 | 5% |
| Finland | 1 | 2% |
| Ireland | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 15 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 26 | 62% |
| Scientists | 12 | 29% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 5% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 224 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 6 | 3% |
| Israel | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 214 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 45 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 34 | 15% |
| Researcher | 22 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 16 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 6% |
| Other | 50 | 22% |
| Unknown | 43 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 44 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 38 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 27 | 12% |
| Psychology | 23 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 9 | 4% |
| Other | 29 | 13% |
| Unknown | 54 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 12 April 2016.
All research outputs
#1,487,079
of 24,692,658 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#179
of 2,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,220
of 373,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#5
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,692,658 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,195 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 373,547 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.