| Title |
Reasons for and against participation in studies of medicinal therapies for women with breast cancer: a debate
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-12-25 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gero Luschin, Marion Habersack, Irmina-Anna Gerlich |
| Abstract |
A special challenge for research studies of breast cancer among females is low patient participation rates. We compiled this systematic review to identify reasons why women with, or at high risk of, breast cancer do or do not participate in medicinal studies of breast cancer. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 3 | 75% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 5% |
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 20 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 18% |
| Unknown | 1 | 5% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 32% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 14% |
| Psychology | 3 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 2 | 9% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 02 April 2012.
All research outputs
#12,853,567
of 22,663,969 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,181
of 2,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,341
of 155,896 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#13
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 155,896 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 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 65% of its contemporaries.