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 |
La acreditación de los comités de ética de la investigación
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Gaceta Sanitaria, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.gaceta.2016.08.007 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Miguel A. Ramiro Avilés |
| Abstract |
According to Law 14/2007 and Royal Decree 1090/2015, biomedical research must be assessed by an Research Ethics Committee (REC), which must be accredited as an Research ethics committee for clinical trials involving medicinal products (RECm) if the opinion is issued for a clinical trial involving medicinal products or clinical research with medical devices. The aim of this study is to ascertain how IEC and IECm accreditation is regulated. National and regional legislation governing biomedical research was analysed. No clearly-defined IEC or IECm accreditation procedures exist in the national or regional legislation. Independent Ethics Committees are vital for the development of basic or clinical biomedical research, and they must be accredited by an external body in order to safeguard their independence, multidisciplinary composition and review procedures. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 123 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 17% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 10% |
| Professor | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 20 | 16% |
| Unknown | 29 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 25 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 10% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 10 | 8% |
| Engineering | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 14% |
| Unknown | 33 | 27% |
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 11 January 2017.
All research outputs
#14,857,504
of 25,988,468 outputs
Outputs from Gaceta Sanitaria
#184
of 466 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,214
of 425,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gaceta Sanitaria
#7
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,988,468 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 466 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 425,568 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.