↓ Skip to main content

Describing methods and interventions: a protocol for the systematic analysis of the perioperative quality improvement literature

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 29 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 37%
Researcher 4 13%
Other 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Librarian 2 7%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 60%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 13%
Sports and Recreations 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Mathematics 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 2 7%

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.