↓ Skip to main content

What counts as reliable evidence for public health policy: the case of circumcision for preventing HIV infection

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
What counts as reliable evidence for public health policy: the case of circumcision for preventing HIV infection
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-11-34
Pubmed ID
Authors

Reidar K Lie, Franklin G Miller

Abstract

There is an ongoing controversy over the relative merits of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized observational studies in assessing efficacy and guiding policy. In this paper we examine male circumcision to prevent HIV infection as a case study that can illuminate the appropriate role of different types of evidence for public health interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
Chile 1 4%
Unknown 26 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 18%
Researcher 3 11%
Lecturer 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 7 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 43%
Social Sciences 4 14%
Psychology 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Philosophy 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 6 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 18 February 2019.
All research outputs
#3,087,746
of 22,649,029 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#486
of 2,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,646
of 109,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#5
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,649,029 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,000 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 109,249 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.