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 |
Validity of claims made in weight management research: a narrative review of dietetic articles
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nutrition Journal, July 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1475-2891-9-30 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lucy Aphramor |
| Abstract |
The best available evidence demonstrates that conventional weight management has a high long-term failure rate. The ethical implications of continued reliance on an energy deficit approach to weight management are under-explored. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 82 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 States | 24 | 29% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | 7% |
| France | 4 | 5% |
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| Sri Lanka | 1 | 1% |
| North Macedonia | 1 | 1% |
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 41 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 74 | 90% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 5% |
| Scientists | 2 | 2% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 141 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 24 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 10% |
| Other | 13 | 9% |
| Other | 32 | 22% |
| Unknown | 22 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 25% |
| Social Sciences | 22 | 15% |
| Psychology | 16 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 8% |
| Other | 19 | 13% |
| Unknown | 28 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 77. 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 19 September 2022.
All research outputs
#563,518
of 25,754,670 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#178
of 1,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,413
of 105,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,754,670 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,529 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 105,702 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.