↓ Skip to main content

Development and use of a content search strategy for retrieving studies on patients' views and preferences

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#37 of 2,307)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
76 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
Development and use of a content search strategy for retrieving studies on patients' views and preferences
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12955-017-0698-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Selva, Ivan Solà, Yuan Zhang, Hector Pardo-Hernandez, R. Brian Haynes, Laura Martínez García, Tamara Navarro, Holger Schünemann, Pablo Alonso-Coello

Abstract

Identifying scientific literature addressing patients' views and preferences is complex due to the wide range of studies that can be informative and the poor indexing of this evidence. Given the lack of guidance we developed a search strategy to retrieve this type of evidence. We assembled an initial list of terms from several sources, including the revision of the terms and indexing of topic-related studies and, methods research literature, and other relevant projects and systematic reviews. We used the relative recall approach, evaluating the capacity of the designed search strategy for retrieving studies included in relevant systematic reviews for the topic. We implemented in practice the final version of the search strategy for conducting systematic reviews and guidelines, and calculated search's precision and the number of references needed to read (NNR). We assembled an initial version of the search strategy, which had a relative recall of 87.4% (yield of 132/out of 151 studies). We then added some additional terms from the studies not initially identified, and re-tested this improved version against the studies included in a new set of systematic reviews, reaching a relative recall of 85.8% (151/out of 176 studies, 95% CI 79.9 to 90.2). This final version of the strategy includes two sets of terms related with two domains: "Patient Preferences and Decision Making" and "Health State Utilities Values". When we used the search strategy for the development of systematic reviews and clinical guidelines we obtained low precision values (ranging from 2% to 5%), and the NNR from 20 to 50. This search strategy fills an important research gap in this field. It will help systematic reviewers, clinical guideline developers, and policy-makers to retrieve published research on patients' views and preferences. In turn, this will facilitate the inclusion of this critical aspect when formulating heath care decisions, including recommendations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 76 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Librarian 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 16 23%
Unknown 21 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 14 20%
Unknown 23 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 January 2021.
All research outputs
#958,026
of 25,806,763 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#37
of 2,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,130
of 324,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#3
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,763 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 2,307 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 324,668 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 61 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 95% of its contemporaries.