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 |
The impact of health information technology on prescribing errors in hospitals: a systematic review and behaviour change technique analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, December 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-020-01510-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joan Devin, Brian J. Cleary, Shane Cullinan |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 6 | 43% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 14% |
| Brazil | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 86% |
| Scientists | 1 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 103 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 11% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 13% |
| Unknown | 45 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Business, Management and Accounting | 9 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 17% |
| Unknown | 47 | 46% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 07 December 2020.
All research outputs
#4,113,016
of 25,269,846 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#738
of 2,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,934
of 524,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#20
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,269,846 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,214 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 524,095 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 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 68% of its contemporaries.