↓ Skip to main content

Adapting the James Lind Alliance priority setting process to better support patient participation: an example from cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Research Involvement and Engagement, August 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
50 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Adapting the James Lind Alliance priority setting process to better support patient participation: an example from cystic fibrosis
Published in
Research Involvement and Engagement, August 2019
DOI 10.1186/s40900-019-0159-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

N. J. Rowbotham, S. J. Smith, Z. C. Elliott, P. A. Leighton, O. C. Rayner, R. Morley, A. R. Smyth

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 20%
Student > Master 8 15%
Other 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 14 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 13%
Social Sciences 6 11%
Unspecified 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 17 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 21 February 2022.
All research outputs
#889,045
of 21,840,504 outputs
Outputs from Research Involvement and Engagement
#79
of 358 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,004
of 283,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Involvement and Engagement
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,840,504 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 358 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 283,760 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them