The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 100 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
The unethical use of BMI in contemporary general practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Journal of General Practice, September 2010
|
| DOI | 10.3399/bjgp10x515548 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephen Humphreys |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 26 | 26% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 5% |
| Canada | 5 | 5% |
| North Macedonia | 2 | 2% |
| Sri Lanka | 2 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Ireland | 1 | 1% |
| Antigua and Barbuda | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 3% |
| Unknown | 53 | 53% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 86 | 86% |
| Scientists | 6 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 4% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 92 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 55 | 59% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 57 | 61% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 639. 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 September 2024.
All research outputs
#37,174
of 26,744,696 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#20
of 5,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52
of 108,292 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#1
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,744,696 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 5,123 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.9. 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 108,292 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 26 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 96% of its contemporaries.