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 |
Ethics, regulation, and beyond: the landscape of research with pregnant women
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Reproductive Health, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12978-017-0421-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carla Saenz, Phaik Yeong Cheah, Rieke van der Graaf, Leslie Meltzer Henry, Anna C. Mastroianni |
| Abstract |
Scarce research with pregnant women has led to a dearth of evidence to guide medical decisions about safe and effective treatment and preventive interventions for pregnant women and their potential offspring. In this paper, we highlight three aspects of the landscape in which pregnant women are included or, more frequently, excluded from research: international ethics guidance, regional and national regulatory frameworks, and prevailing practices. Our paper suggests that, in some cases, regulatory frameworks can be more restrictive than international ethics guidance, and that even when regulations permit research with pregnant women, practical challenges-as well as the prevailing practices of stakeholders, such as ethics review committees and investigators-may lead to the generalized exclusion of pregnant women from research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Thailand | 1 | 11% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 7 | 78% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 89% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 15% |
| Researcher | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 11 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 24% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 3% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 18% |
| Unknown | 11 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 24 August 2018.
All research outputs
#4,710,055
of 23,322,258 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#534
of 1,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,362
of 441,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#32
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,322,258 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,433 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 441,019 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.