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 |
Missing and accounted for: gaps and areas of wealth in the public health review literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, October 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-11-757 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daiva Tirilis, Heather Husson, Kara DeCorby, Maureen Dobbins |
| Abstract |
High-quality review evidence is useful for informing and influencing public health policy and practice decisions. However, certain topic areas lack representation in terms of the quantity and quality of review literature available. The objectives of this paper are to identify the quantity, as well as quality, of review-level evidence available on the effectiveness of public health interventions for public health decision makers. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Portugal | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Norway | 1 | 1% |
| Denmark | 1 | 1% |
| Peru | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 88 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 18% |
| Researcher | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 6% |
| Librarian | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 20 | 21% |
| Unknown | 25 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 33% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 13% |
| Environmental Science | 5 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Unknown | 29 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 December 2011.
All research outputs
#14,141,030
of 22,659,164 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#10,254
of 14,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,680
of 132,710 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#145
of 200 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,659,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,741 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 132,710 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 200 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.