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 |
Research ethics consultation: an attempt and 5-year experience in a Japanese University Hospital
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Research Notes, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13104-018-3772-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hiroaki Yanagawa, Rumi Katashima, Chiho Sato, Kenshi Takechi, Hiroshi Nokihara, Chikako Kane, Masayuki Chuma, Yuki Aoe |
| Abstract |
Research ethics consultation is an advisory activity that differs from ethics committees, and its role is not yet widely known in Japan. Research ethics consultations were started in 2012 by members of the Clinical Trial Center of Tokushima University Hospital, a support section for clinical trials. We analyzed the research ethics consultation records from Tokushima University Hospital during the 5-year period of 2012-2016 to examine the Japanese context of research ethics consultation. During the study period, 125 research ethics consultations were carried out, 115 (91%) before starting studies. All but one request were from investigators at Tokushima University. The main issue was compatibility with guidance and regulations (n = 74, 67.2%), such as ethical handling of human biological specimens and information utilized in research; only 6 (4.8%) requests involved research ethics issues that investigators face in their research. Therefore, it is necessary to expand the consultation function, with a nationwide system of consultant education and data sharing. Moreover, standardization of consultation should be considered. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 9 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Librarian | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 11% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 11% |
| Psychology | 1 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 56% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 September 2018.
All research outputs
#21,264,673
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,616
of 4,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#297,247
of 339,431 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#117
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,300 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 339,431 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 131 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.