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 |
Describing methods and interventions: a protocol for the systematic analysis of the perioperative quality improvement literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-3-98 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emma Jones, Nicholas Lees, Graham Martin, Mary Dixon-Woods |
| Abstract |
Quality improvement (QI) methods are widely used in surgery in an effort to improve care, often using techniques such as Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles to implement specific interventions. Explicit definition of both the QI method and quality intervention is necessary to enable the accurate replication of effective interventions in practice, facilitate cumulative learning, reduce research waste and optimise benefits to patients. This systematic review aims to assess quality of reporting of QI methods and quality interventions in perioperative care. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 30 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 32% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Librarian | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 23% |
| Unknown | 3 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 58% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 10% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 10% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 22 March 2017.
All research outputs
#13,063,777
of 22,763,032 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,377
of 1,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,757
of 238,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#23
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,763,032 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 238,416 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.