| Title |
Comparison of the performance of five screening methods for sarcopenia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Epidemiology, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/clep.s148638 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Médéa Locquet, Charlotte Beaudart, Jean-Yves Reginster, Jean Petermans, Olivier Bruyère |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 | 2 | 20% |
| Australia | 2 | 20% |
| Brazil | 1 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
| Canada | 1 | 10% |
| Belgium | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 40% |
| Scientists | 4 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 139 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 17% |
| Researcher | 18 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 10% |
| Other | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 20 | 14% |
| Unknown | 41 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 15% |
| Sports and Recreations | 12 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 2% |
| Engineering | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 9% |
| Unknown | 51 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 27 June 2019.
All research outputs
#4,308,455
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epidemiology
#185
of 806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,982
of 448,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epidemiology
#7
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 448,913 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 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.