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 |
An evaluation of the content and quality of tinnitus information on websites preferred by General Practitioners
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-12-70 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kathryn Fackrell, Derek J Hoare, Sandra Smith, Abby McCormack, Deborah A Hall |
| Abstract |
Tinnitus is a prevalent and complex medical complaint often co-morbid with stress, anxiety, insomnia, depression, and cognitive or communication difficulties. Its chronicity places a major burden on primary and secondary healthcare services. In our recent national survey of General Practitioners (GPs) from across England, many reported that their awareness of tinnitus was limited and as a result were dissatisfied with the service they currently provide. GPs identified 10 online sources of information they currently use in clinical practice, but welcomed further concise and accurate information on tinnitus assessment and management. The purpose of this study was to assess the content, reliability, and quality of the information related to primary care tinnitus assessment and management on these 10 websites. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 3 | 60% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| India | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 78 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 20% |
| Unknown | 17 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 34% |
| Psychology | 10 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 12% |
| Unknown | 18 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 28 September 2016.
All research outputs
#2,445,974
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#162
of 2,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,767
of 165,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#7
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,027 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 165,631 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.