↓ Skip to main content

A worked example of "best fit" framework synthesis: A systematic review of views concerning the taking of some potential chemopreventive agents

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
124 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
221 Mendeley
Title
A worked example of "best fit" framework synthesis: A systematic review of views concerning the taking of some potential chemopreventive agents
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-11-29
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher Carroll, Andrew Booth, Katy Cooper

Abstract

A variety of different approaches to the synthesis of qualitative data are advocated in the literature. The aim of this paper is to describe the application of a pragmatic method of qualitative evidence synthesis and the lessons learned from adopting this "best fit" framework synthesis approach.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 221 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 2%
Brazil 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 208 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 24%
Researcher 43 19%
Student > Master 43 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 6%
Other 12 5%
Other 37 17%
Unknown 20 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 28%
Social Sciences 49 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 9%
Psychology 19 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 4%
Other 33 15%
Unknown 31 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 January 2018.
All research outputs
#4,169,052
of 14,555,805 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#633
of 1,350 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,664
of 300,740 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#44
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,555,805 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,350 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 300,740 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 101 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 56% of its contemporaries.