↓ Skip to main content

A worked example of "best fit" framework synthesis: A systematic review of views concerning the taking of some potential chemopreventive agents

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
199 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
299 Mendeley
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.
Title
A worked example of "best fit" framework synthesis: A systematic review of views concerning the taking of some potential chemopreventive agents
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-11-29
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher Carroll, Andrew Booth, Katy Cooper

Abstract

A variety of different approaches to the synthesis of qualitative data are advocated in the literature. The aim of this paper is to describe the application of a pragmatic method of qualitative evidence synthesis and the lessons learned from adopting this "best fit" framework synthesis approach.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 299 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 2%
Brazil 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 286 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 67 22%
Student > Master 53 18%
Researcher 52 17%
Other 19 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 6%
Other 49 16%
Unknown 40 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 72 24%
Social Sciences 59 20%
Psychology 29 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 10 3%
Other 42 14%
Unknown 62 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 January 2018.
All research outputs
#5,234,820
of 17,363,630 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#812
of 1,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,262
of 314,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#47
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,363,630 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,610 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 314,555 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.