↓ Skip to main content

Did a quality improvement collaborative make stroke care better? A cluster randomized trial

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, April 2014
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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
42 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 Mendeley
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
Did a quality improvement collaborative make stroke care better? A cluster randomized trial
Published in
Implementation Science, April 2014
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-9-40
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maxine Power, Pippa J Tyrrell, Anthony G Rudd, Mary P Tully, David Dalton, Martin Marshall, Ian Chappell, Delphine Corgié, Don Goldmann, Dale Webb, Mary Dixon-Woods, Gareth Parry

Abstract

Stroke can result in death and long-term disability. Fast and high-quality care can reduce the impact of stroke, but UK national audit data has demonstrated variability in compliance with recommended processes of care. Though quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) are widely used, whether a QIC could improve reliability of stroke care was unknown.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 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 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Ireland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 117 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 18%
Student > Master 17 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 29 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 11%
Social Sciences 12 10%
Psychology 8 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 35 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 23 May 2014.
All research outputs
#1,259,039
of 23,400,864 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#239
of 1,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,263
of 227,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#4
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,400,864 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,729 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 227,573 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 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.