↓ Skip to main content

Clinical evidence continuous medical education: a randomised educational trial of an open access e-learning program for transferring evidence-based information – ICEKUBE (Italian Clinical Evidence…

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, January 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
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.
Title
Clinical evidence continuous medical education: a randomised educational trial of an open access e-learning program for transferring evidence-based information – ICEKUBE (Italian Clinical Evidence Knowledge Utilization Behaviour Evaluation) – study protocol
Published in
Implementation Science, January 2008
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-3-37
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lorenzo Moja, Ivan Moschetti, Michela Cinquini, Valeria Sala, Anna Compagnoni, Piergiorgio Duca, Christian Deligant, Roberto Manfrini, Luca Clivio, Roberto Satolli, Antonio Addis, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Pietro Dri, Alessandro Liberati

Abstract

In an effort to ensure that all physicians have access to valid and reliable evidence on drug effectiveness, the Italian Drug Agency sponsored a free-access e-learning system, based on Clinical Evidence, called ECCE. Doctors have access to an electronic version and related clinical vignettes. Correct answers to the interactive vignettes provide Continuing Medical Education credits. The aims of this trial are to establish whether the e-learning program (ECCE) increases physicians' basic knowledge about common clinical scenarios, and whether ECCE is superior to the passive diffusion of information through the printed version of Clinical Evidence.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 4%
United States 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 51 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 16%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Professor 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 15 27%
Unknown 15 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 29%
Social Sciences 7 13%
Psychology 4 7%
Computer Science 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 14 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 October 2012.
All research outputs
#3,081,218
of 4,507,144 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#707
of 752 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,230
of 81,836 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#36
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,507,144 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 752 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 81,836 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.