| Title |
The methodological quality of animal research in critical care: the public face of science
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Intensive Care, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13613-014-0026-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Meredith Bara, Ari R Joffe |
| Abstract |
Animal research (AR) findings often do not translate to humans; one potential reason is the poor methodological quality of AR. We aimed to determine this quality of AR reported in critical care journals. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 33% |
| Pakistan | 1 | 11% |
| Cameroon | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 1 | 11% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 78% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 23 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 29% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 21% |
| Researcher | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 2 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 21% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 4 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 13% |
| Psychology | 2 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 09 April 2015.
All research outputs
#4,154,829
of 22,759,618 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#463
of 1,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,257
of 228,919 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,759,618 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,036 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 228,919 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.