↓ Skip to main content

The IRB structure and medical research reform

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational Medicine, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
The IRB structure and medical research reform
Published in
Clinical and Translational Medicine, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40169-018-0188-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie Babyar

Abstract

Optimal Independent Review Board (IRB) structure encompasses ongoing process improvement, ethics policies and continuous relationship building, all sound in evidence. With optimal IRB structure, a global research infrastructure will flourish. Evidence for IRB structure must be detailed and expert operational recommendations should guide. Too, health service research oversight should assist in funding as well as collaboration. A national and international research agenda will only benefit from best operations, guided in evidence, supported in best regulatory and research leadership practice. It is imperative that the IRB structure be reformed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 33%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 11%
Other 1 11%
Researcher 1 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 11%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 3 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 22%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 11%
Engineering 1 11%
Unknown 2 22%

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 28 June 2018.
All research outputs
#8,699,914
of 16,578,007 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#96
of 306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,242
of 281,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,578,007 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 306 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 281,150 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 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them