↓ Skip to main content

Prospective multicenter randomized patient recruitment and sample collection to enable future measurements of sputum biomarkers of inflammation in an observational study of cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
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.
Title
Prospective multicenter randomized patient recruitment and sample collection to enable future measurements of sputum biomarkers of inflammation in an observational study of cystic fibrosis
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2019
DOI 10.1186/s12874-019-0705-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Theodore G. Liou, Frederick R. Adler, Natalia Argel, Fadi Asfour, Perry S. Brown, Barbara A. Chatfield, Cori L. Daines, Dixie Durham, Jessica A. Francis, Barbara Glover, Theresa Heynekamp, John R. Hoidal, Judy L. Jensen, Ruth Keogh, Carol M. Kopecky, Noah Lechtzin, Yanping Li, Jerimiah Lysinger, Osmara Molina, Craig Nakamura, Kristyn A. Packer, Katie R. Poch, Alexandra L. Quittner, Peggy Radford, Abby J. Redway, Scott D. Sagel, Shawna Sprandel, Jennifer L. Taylor-Cousar, Jane B. Vroom, Ryan Yoshikawa, John P. Clancy, J. Stuart Elborn, Kenneth N. Olivier, David R. Cox

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 116 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 16%
Student > Master 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 44 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Psychology 5 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 47 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 April 2020.
All research outputs
#3,273,463
of 23,302,246 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#518
of 2,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,679
of 350,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#22
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,302,246 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,054 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 350,204 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.