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 |
Adrian Grant’s pioneering use of evidence synthesis in perinatal medicine, 1980–1992
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Reproductive Health, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12978-018-0518-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Iain Chalmers |
| Abstract |
Systematic reviews of existing research are needed to help reduce the enormous amount of wasted resources in biomedical research. Whether already available or needed but unavailable, systematic reviews are a key element in prioritising questions for new research, and for informing the design of additional studies. One of the most important of Adrian Grant's many contributions was to recognise this a decade before it began to become more widely accepted. In this sphere, as well as in many others, he was a real pioneer. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 | 13 | 50% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 4% |
| Ireland | 1 | 4% |
| Denmark | 1 | 4% |
| Italy | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 58% |
| Scientists | 8 | 31% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 6 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 50% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 33% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 17% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 11 December 2020.
All research outputs
#1,688,380
of 25,292,378 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#147
of 1,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,167
of 334,023 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#7
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,292,378 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 1,559 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 334,023 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.