↓ Skip to main content

Erratum to: ‘Evaluation of quality improvement for cesarean sections programmes through mixed methods’

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
Erratum to: ‘Evaluation of quality improvement for cesarean sections programmes through mixed methods’
Published in
Implementation Science, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13012-016-0402-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Clara Bermúdez-Tamayo, Mira Johri, Francisco Jose Perez-Ramos, Gracia Maroto-Navarro, Africa Caño-Aguilar, Leticia Garcia-Mochon, Longinos Aceituno, François Audibert, Nils Chaillet

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 4 33%
Researcher 3 25%
Professor 2 17%
Librarian 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 4 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 8%
Computer Science 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 25%
Attention Score in Context

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 18 March 2016.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,711
of 1,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,989
of 314,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#45
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,809 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 314,938 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 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.