↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1063 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
884 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2009
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003030.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louise Forsetlund, Arild Bjørndal, Arash Rashidian, Gro Jamtvedt, Mary Ann O'Brien, Fredric M Wolf, Dave Davis, Jan Odgaard-Jensen, Andrew D Oxman

Abstract

Educational meetings are widely used for continuing medical education. Previous reviews found that interactive workshops resulted in moderately large improvements in professional practice, whereas didactic sessions did not.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 884 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 13 1%
United Kingdom 12 1%
Canada 5 <1%
Australia 3 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
South Africa 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 839 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 177 20%
Researcher 132 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 114 13%
Student > Bachelor 68 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 62 7%
Other 227 26%
Unknown 104 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 351 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 111 13%
Social Sciences 80 9%
Psychology 55 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 2%
Other 121 14%
Unknown 147 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 56. 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 18 March 2020.
All research outputs
#458,414
of 17,361,274 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,050
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,129
of 121,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,361,274 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 121,516 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 80 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 92% of its contemporaries.