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 |
Tools for assessing the content of guidelines are needed to enable their effective use – a systematic comparison
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Research Notes, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1756-0500-7-853 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michaela Eikermann, Nicole Holzmann, Ulrich Siering, Alric Rüther |
| Abstract |
To ensure that clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) form a sound basis for decision-making in health care, it is necessary to be able to reliably assess and ensure their quality. This results in the need to assess the content of guidelines systematically, particularly with regard to the validity of their recommendations.The aim of the present analysis was to determine the suitability and applicability of frequently used assessment tools for evidence syntheses with regard to the assessment of guideline content. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Peru | 2 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 47 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 16% |
| Researcher | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 22% |
| Unknown | 12 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 17 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 26 April 2022.
All research outputs
#8,270,860
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,296
of 4,514 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,941
of 369,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#36
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,514 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 369,899 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 131 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 70% of its contemporaries.