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 |
Deficiencies in the transfer and availability of clinical trials evidence: a review of existing systems and standards
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-12-95 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gert van Valkenhoef, Tommi Tervonen, Bert de Brock, Hans Hillege |
| Abstract |
Decisions concerning drug safety and efficacy are generally based on pivotal evidence provided by clinical trials. Unfortunately, finding the relevant clinical trials is difficult and their results are only available in text-based reports. Systematic reviews aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the evidence in a specific area, but may not provide the data required for decision making. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 2 | 40% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 40% |
| Netherlands | 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 4% |
| United States | 2 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 47 | 87% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 19% |
| Researcher | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 26% |
| Unknown | 11 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 15 | 28% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 7% |
| Philosophy | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 14 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 May 2013.
All research outputs
#6,111,221
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#557
of 1,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,881
of 169,085 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#16
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,978 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 169,085 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.