↓ Skip to main content

Guidance for updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review of methodological handbooks

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
153 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
174 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Guidance for updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review of methodological handbooks
Published in
Implementation Science, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-9-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robin WM Vernooij, Andrea Juliana Sanabria, Ivan Solà, Pablo Alonso-Coello, Laura Martínez García

Abstract

Updating clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is a crucial process for maintaining the validity of recommendations. Methodological handbooks should provide guidance on both developing and updating CPGs. However, little is known about the updating guidance provided by these handbooks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 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 174 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Canada 3 2%
Spain 2 1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Madagascar 1 <1%
Unknown 162 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 31 18%
Student > Master 23 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 9%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Other 11 6%
Other 45 26%
Unknown 36 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 3%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Other 33 19%
Unknown 46 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 46. 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 26 April 2022.
All research outputs
#898,239
of 25,330,051 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#111
of 1,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,592
of 319,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#5
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,330,051 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,797 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 319,127 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.