↓ Skip to main content

Guidelines for guideline developers: a systematic review of grading systems for medical tests

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Guidelines for guideline developers: a systematic review of grading systems for medical tests
Published in
Implementation Science, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-8-78
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gowri Gopalakrishna, Miranda W Langendam, Rob JPM Scholten, Patrick MM Bossuyt, Mariska MG Leeflang

Abstract

A variety of systems have been developed to grade evidence and develop recommendations based on the available evidence. However, development of guidelines for medical tests is especially challenging given the typical indirectness of the evidence; direct evidence of the effects of testing on patient important outcomes is usually absent. We compared grading systems for medical tests on how they use evidence in guideline development.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Peru 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Brazil 1 1%
Egypt 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 88 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 16%
Student > Master 12 13%
Other 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Postgraduate 9 9%
Other 25 26%
Unknown 14 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 5%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 20 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 11 December 2014.
All research outputs
#3,834,807
of 24,006,566 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#743
of 1,749 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,532
of 197,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#10
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,006,566 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,749 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 197,727 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.