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 |
The clinical global impression scale and the influence of patient or staff perspective on outcome
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Psychiatry, May 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-244x-11-83 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas Forkmann, Anne Scherer, Maren Boecker, Markus Pawelzik, Ralf Jostes, Siegfried Gauggel |
| Abstract |
Since its first publication, the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI) has become one of the most widely used assessment instruments in psychiatry. Although some conflicting data has been presented, studies investigating the CGI's validity have only rarely been conducted so far. It is unclear whether the improvement index CGI-I or a difference score of the severity index CGI-S (dif) is more valid in depicting clinical change. The current study examined the validity of these two measures and investigated whether therapists' CGI ratings correspond to the view the patients themselves have on their condition. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 165 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 161 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 29 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 12% |
| Other | 13 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 36 | 22% |
| Unknown | 32 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 49 | 30% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 20 | 12% |
| Unknown | 42 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 30 August 2023.
All research outputs
#6,150,019
of 23,662,553 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#2,183
of 4,911 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,735
of 111,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#3
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,662,553 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,911 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 111,900 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.