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 |
Using animal-derived constituents in anaesthesia and surgery: the case for disclosing to patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, February 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12910-019-0351-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daniel Rodger, Bruce P. Blackshaw |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 | 6 | 43% |
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 71% |
| Scientists | 2 | 14% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 18% |
| Unknown | 20 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 12% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 18% |
| Unknown | 20 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 22 December 2023.
All research outputs
#1,799,407
of 25,540,105 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#148
of 1,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,828
of 366,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#6
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,540,105 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,111 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 366,870 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.