↓ Skip to main content

Methods for selecting the best evidence to inform a NICE technology appraisal on selective internal radiation therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, August 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
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.
Title
Methods for selecting the best evidence to inform a NICE technology appraisal on selective internal radiation therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma
Published in
Systematic Reviews, August 2020
DOI 10.1186/s13643-020-01447-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ros Wade, Sahar Sharif-Hurst, Melissa Harden, Matthew Walton, Lindsay Claxton, Robert Hodgson, Alison Eastwood

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Lecturer 2 9%
Unspecified 1 4%
Student > Postgraduate 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 14 61%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 22%
Engineering 2 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Unknown 14 61%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 September 2020.
All research outputs
#13,109,719
of 23,230,825 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,375
of 2,017 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,861
of 369,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#52
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,230,825 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,017 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 369,097 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.