| Title |
Pandemrix vaccine: why was the public not told of early warning signs?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Medical Journal, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1136/bmj.k3948 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter Doshi |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2,526 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 Kingdom | 379 | 15% |
| United States | 232 | 9% |
| Ireland | 57 | 2% |
| Canada | 51 | 2% |
| Australia | 32 | 1% |
| Italy | 28 | 1% |
| Spain | 26 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 25 | <1% |
| France | 24 | <1% |
| Other | 180 | 7% |
| Unknown | 1492 | 59% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2291 | 91% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 99 | 4% |
| Scientists | 78 | 3% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 39 | 2% |
| Unknown | 19 | <1% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 65 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 20% |
| Researcher | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Professor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 14% |
| Unknown | 20 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 8% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 25 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2033. 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 24 April 2024.
All research outputs
#4,567
of 25,802,847 outputs
Outputs from British Medical Journal
#120
of 65,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75
of 353,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Medical Journal
#2
of 725 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,802,847 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 65,080 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 353,025 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 725 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 99% of its contemporaries.