↓ Skip to main content

CMAJ

Article Metrics

A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing mortality rates of private for-profit and private not-for-profit hospitals.

Overview of attention for article published in Canadian Medical Association Journal, May 2002
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
11 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
382 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
156 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
164 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing mortality rates of private for-profit and private not-for-profit hospitals.
Published in
Canadian Medical Association Journal, May 2002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Devereaux, P J, Choi, Peter T L, Lacchetti, Christina, Weaver, Bruce, Schünemann, Holger J, Haines, Ted, Lavis, John N, Grant, Brydon J B, Haslam, David R S, Bhandari, Mohit, Sullivan, Terrence, Cook, Deborah J, Walter, Stephen D, Meade, Maureen, Khan, Humaira, Bhatnagar, Neera, Guyatt, Gordon H, P.J. Devereaux, Peter T.L. Choi, Christina Lacchetti, Bruce Weaver, Holger J. Schünemann, Ted Haines, John N. Lavis, Brydon J.B. Grant, David R.S. Haslam, Mohit Bhandari, Terrence Sullivan, Deborah J. Cook, Stephen D. Walter, Maureen Meade, Humaira Khan, Neera Bhatnagar, Gordon H. Guyatt

Abstract

Canadians are engaged in an intense debate about the relative merits of private for-profit versus private not-for-profit health care delivery. To inform this debate, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the mortality rates of private for-profit hospitals and those of private not-for-profit hospitals.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 382 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 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 5 3%
United States 3 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Tunisia 1 <1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 150 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 23%
Researcher 24 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 13%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Other 13 8%
Other 43 26%
Unknown 10 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 38%
Social Sciences 32 20%
Business, Management and Accounting 10 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 4%
Other 24 15%
Unknown 18 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 425. 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 19 October 2020.
All research outputs
#33,029
of 16,294,483 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#68
of 7,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167
of 222,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#1
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,294,483 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 7,138 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.4. 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 222,850 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 134 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.