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 |
Evidence-based decision-making in infectious diseases epidemiology, prevention and control: matching research questions to study designs and quality appraisal tools
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-14-69 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas Harder, Anja Takla, Eva Rehfuess, Alex Sánchez-Vivar, Dorothea Matysiak-Klose, Tim Eckmanns, Gérard Krause, Helena de Carvalho Gomes, Andreas Jansen, Simon Ellis, Frode Forland, Roberta James, Joerg J Meerpohl, Antony Morgan, Holger Schünemann, Teun Zuiderent-Jerak, Ole Wichmann |
| Abstract |
The Project on a Framework for Rating Evidence in Public Health (PRECEPT) was initiated and is being funded by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) to define a methodology for evaluating and grading evidence and strength of recommendations in the field of public health, with emphasis on infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control. One of the first steps was to review existing quality appraisal tools (QATs) for individual research studies of various designs relevant to this area, using a question-based approach. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 80 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 16% |
| Researcher | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 18% |
| Unknown | 17 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 18% |
| Unknown | 19 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 June 2014.
All research outputs
#13,713,889
of 22,756,196 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,327
of 2,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,973
of 226,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#15
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,756,196 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,008 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 226,345 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 50% of its contemporaries.