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 |
Challenges in implementing The Institute of Medicine systematic review standards
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-2-69 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephanie M Chang, Eric B Bass, Nancy Berkman, Timothy S Carey, Robert L Kane, Joseph Lau, Sara Ratichek |
| Abstract |
In 2011, The Institute of Medicine (IOM) identified a set of methodological standards to improve the validity, trustworthiness, and usefulness of systematic reviews. These standards, based on a mix of theoretical principles, empiric evidence, and commonly considered best practices, set a high bar for authors of systematic reviews.Based on over 15 years of experience conducting systematic reviews, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) program has examined the EPC's adherence and agreement with the IOM standards. Even such a large program, with infrastructure and resource support, found challenges in implementing all of the IOM standards. We summarize some of the challenges in implementing the IOM standards as a whole and suggest some considerations for individual or smaller research groups needing to prioritize which standards to adhere to, yet still achieve the highest quality and utility possible for their systematic reviews. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 19 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 25% |
| Librarian | 4 | 20% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 15% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 10% |
| Professor | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 2 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 30% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 7 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 20 December 2017.
All research outputs
#1,990,686
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#335
of 1,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,557
of 200,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#7
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,988 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 200,133 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 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.