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 |
Implementation challenges for an ethical introduction of noninvasive prenatal testing: a qualitative study of healthcare professionals’ views from Lebanon and Quebec
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, February 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12910-020-0455-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hazar Haidar, Meredith Vanstone, Anne-Marie Laberge, Gilles Bibeau, Labib Ghulmiyyah, Vardit Ravitsky |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 3 | 30% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 6 | 60% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 30% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 76 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 9% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 13% |
| Unknown | 29 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 28 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 February 2020.
All research outputs
#5,519,081
of 23,195,584 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#470
of 1,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,150
of 455,716 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#18
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,195,584 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,007 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 455,716 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.