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 |
Choice of observational study design impacts on measurement of antipsychotic risks in the elderly: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-12-72 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicole Pratt, Elizabeth E Roughead, Amy Salter, Philip Ryan |
| Abstract |
Antipsychotics are frequently and increasingly prescribed to treat the behavioural symptoms associated with dementia despite their modest efficacy. Evidence regarding the potential adverse events of antipsychotics is limited and little is known about the longer-term safety of these medicines in the elderly. The aim of this review was to determine the impact of the choice of observational study design and methods used to control for confounding on the measurement of antipsychotic risks in elderly patients. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 83 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 16% |
| Researcher | 13 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 24 | 28% |
| Unknown | 7 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 45 | 52% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 6% |
| Psychology | 5 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 17% |
| Unknown | 8 | 9% |
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 09 June 2012.
All research outputs
#23,010,126
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#2,168
of 2,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,523
of 181,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#26
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,304 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 181,174 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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.