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 |
Evidence-based medicine: Classifying the evidence from clinical trials – the need to consider other dimensions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, October 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc5045 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rinaldo Bellomo, Sean M Bagshaw |
| Abstract |
The current approach to assessing the quality of evidence obtained from clinical trials focuses on three dimensions: the quality of the design (with double-blinded randomised controlled trials representing the highest level of such design); the statistical power (beta) and the level of significance (alpha). While these aspects are important, we argue that other significant aspects of trial quality impinge upon the truthfulness of the findings: biological plausibility, reproducibility and generalisability. We present several recent studies in critical care medicine where the design, beta and alpha components of the study are seemingly satisfactory but where the aspects of biological plausibility, reproducibility and generalisability show serious limitations. Accordingly, we argue for more reflection, definition and consensus on these aspects of the evaluation of evidence. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 | 2 | 33% |
| Canada | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 2 | 2% |
| Spain | 2 | 2% |
| Belgium | 2 | 2% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| India | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 78 | 86% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Lecturer | 10 | 11% |
| Researcher | 10 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 10 | 11% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 33 | 36% |
| Unknown | 11 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 55 | 60% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 13 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 February 2024.
All research outputs
#2,705,340
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,342
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,954
of 87,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#2
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 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 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 87,630 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.