| Title |
Current use of medical eponyms – a need for global uniformity in scientific publications
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-9-18 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Narayan Jana, Sukumar Barik, Nalini Arora |
| Abstract |
Although eponyms are widely used in medicine, they arbitrarily alternate between the possessive and nonpossessive forms. As very little is known regarding extent and distribution of this variation, the present study was planned to assess current use of eponymous term taking "Down syndrome" and "Down's syndrome" as an example. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 | 20% |
| Spain | 2 | 20% |
| Uruguay | 1 | 10% |
| Australia | 1 | 10% |
| Philippines | 1 | 10% |
| Canada | 1 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 1 | 10% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 70% |
| Scientists | 2 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Russia | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 27 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 18% |
| Other | 5 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 14% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 21% |
| Unknown | 4 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 36% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 11% |
| Linguistics | 3 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 6 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 26 May 2022.
All research outputs
#2,008,986
of 25,378,799 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#260
of 2,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,830
of 103,791 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,378,799 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,263 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 103,791 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.