↓ Skip to main content

A randomized comparison of patients’ understanding of number needed to treat and other common risk reduction formats

Overview of attention for article published in JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine, November 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
110 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
Title
A randomized comparison of patients’ understanding of number needed to treat and other common risk reduction formats
Published in
JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine, November 2003
DOI 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.21102.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stacey L. Sheridan, Michael P. Pignone, Carmen L. Lewis, Sheridan, Stacey L, Pignone, Michael P, Lewis, Carmen L

Abstract

Commentators have suggested that patients may understand quantitative information about treatment benefits better when they are presented as numbers needed to treat (NNT) rather than as absolute or relative risk reductions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
United States 2 3%
Turkey 1 2%
Unknown 60 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 20%
Professor 9 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Other 22 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 37%
Psychology 15 23%
Unspecified 10 15%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 9 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 05 March 2019.
All research outputs
#492,049
of 13,218,736 outputs
Outputs from JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine
#437
of 4,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#477,558
of 12,590,543 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine
#427
of 4,565 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,218,736 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,691 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 12,590,543 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,565 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.