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 |
Medical device assessment: scientific evidence examined by the French national agency for health – a descriptive study
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Public Health, August 2012
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-12-585 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Laure Huot, Evelyne Decullier, Karen Maes-Beny, Francois R Chapuis |
Abstract |
Scientific evidence supports decision-making on the use of implantable medical devices (IMDs) in clinical practice, but IMDs are thought to be far less investigated than drugs. In the USA, studies have shown that approval process of high-risk medical devices was often based on insufficiently robust studies, suggesting that evidence prior to marketing may not be adequate. This study aimed to ascertain level of evidence available for IMDs access to reimbursement in France. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
France | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 41 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 9 | 21% |
Student > Master | 8 | 19% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 12% |
Other | 3 | 7% |
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 2% |
Other | 2 | 5% |
Unknown | 15 | 35% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 21% |
Engineering | 3 | 7% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 7% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 5% |
Other | 9 | 21% |
Unknown | 15 | 35% |
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 10 March 2013.
All research outputs
#15,248,503
of 22,673,450 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#11,253
of 14,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,546
of 164,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#272
of 349 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,673,450 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,755 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 164,709 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 349 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.