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 |
Efficient clinical evaluation of guideline quality: development and testing of a new tool
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-14-63 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Karen Grimmer, Janine Margarita Dizon, Steve Milanese, Ellena King, Kate Beaton, Olivia Thorpe, Lucylynn Lizarondo, Julie Luker, Zuzana Machotka, Saravana Kumar |
| Abstract |
Evaluating the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines is essential before deciding which ones which could best inform policy or practice. One current method of evaluating clinical guideline quality is the research-focused AGREE II instrument. This uses 23 questions scored 1-7, arranged in six domains, which requires at least two independent testers, and uses a formulaic weighted domain scoring system. Following feedback from time-poor clinicians, policy-makers and managers that this instrument did not suit clinical need, we developed and tested a simpler, shorter, binary scored instrument (the iCAHE Guideline Quality Checklist) designed for single users. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 7 | 58% |
| Ireland | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 2% |
| Peru | 2 | 2% |
| Ecuador | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 95 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 20% |
| Researcher | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 24 | 24% |
| Unknown | 16 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 26 | 26% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Unknown | 22 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 07 May 2015.
All research outputs
#4,774,087
of 23,566,295 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#754
of 2,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,177
of 228,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#10
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,566,295 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,079 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 228,707 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 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 66% of its contemporaries.