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 |
A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2004
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-4-22 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Persis Katrak, Andrea E Bialocerkowski, Nicola Massy-Westropp, VS Saravana Kumar, Karen A Grimmer |
| Abstract |
Consumers of research (researchers, administrators, educators and clinicians) frequently use standard critical appraisal tools to evaluate the quality of published research reports. However, there is no consensus regarding the most appropriate critical appraisal tool for allied health research. We summarized the content, intent, construction and psychometric properties of published, currently available critical appraisal tools to identify common elements and their relevance to allied health research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 6 | 40% |
| Canada | 2 | 13% |
| Spain | 1 | 7% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 7% |
| Norway | 1 | 7% |
| Australia | 1 | 7% |
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 2 | 13% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 33% |
| Scientists | 3 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,055 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 12 | 1% |
| Canada | 3 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Zambia | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| United Arab Emirates | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 6 | <1% |
| Unknown | 1025 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 274 | 26% |
| Student > Bachelor | 102 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 87 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 83 | 8% |
| Researcher | 65 | 6% |
| Other | 236 | 22% |
| Unknown | 208 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 260 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 258 | 24% |
| Social Sciences | 74 | 7% |
| Psychology | 52 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 40 | 4% |
| Other | 135 | 13% |
| Unknown | 236 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 27 August 2022.
All research outputs
#2,689,584
of 25,724,500 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#399
of 2,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,494
of 64,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,724,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,312 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 64,521 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them