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 |
Trials within trials? Researcher, funder and ethical perspectives on the practicality and acceptability of nesting trials of recruitment methods in existing primary care trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-10-38 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jonathan Graffy, Peter Bower, Elaine Ward, Paul Wallace, Brendan Delaney, Ann-Louise Kinmonth, David Collier, Julia Miller |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Qatar | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 44 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 27% |
| Researcher | 12 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 19% |
| Unknown | 5 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 27% |
| Psychology | 7 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 17% |
| Unknown | 7 | 15% |
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 19 April 2016.
All research outputs
#15,353,264
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,508
of 2,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,295
of 94,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#8
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,015 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 94,950 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.