The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 122 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.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Exercises to improve function of the rheumatoid hand (SARAH): a randomised controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Lancet, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1016/s0140-6736(14)60998-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah E Lamb, Esther M Williamson, Peter J Heine, Jo Adams, Sukhdeep Dosanjh, Melina Dritsaki, Matthew J Glover, Joanne Lord, Christopher McConkey, Vivien Nichols, Anisur Rahman, Martin Underwood, Mark A Williams, on behalf of the Strengthening and Stretching for Rheumatoid Arthritis of the Hand Trial Trial Team |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 15 | 12% |
| Spain | 8 | 7% |
| United States | 8 | 7% |
| Canada | 3 | 2% |
| Singapore | 3 | 2% |
| Australia | 3 | 2% |
| Norway | 2 | 2% |
| Japan | 2 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Unknown | 71 | 58% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 82 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 20 | 16% |
| Scientists | 18 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 361 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Israel | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 351 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 53 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 46 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 37 | 10% |
| Researcher | 30 | 8% |
| Other | 28 | 8% |
| Other | 72 | 20% |
| Unknown | 95 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 106 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 73 | 20% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 3% |
| Sports and Recreations | 11 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 2% |
| Other | 42 | 12% |
| Unknown | 109 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 139. 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 22 July 2024.
All research outputs
#317,255
of 26,510,312 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#3,254
of 43,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,873
of 267,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#47
of 569 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,510,312 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 43,626 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 68.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 267,974 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 569 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 91% of its contemporaries.