↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of clinical practice guidelines using the AGREE instrument: comparison between data obtained from AGREE I and AGREE II

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Evaluation of clinical practice guidelines using the AGREE instrument: comparison between data obtained from AGREE I and AGREE II
Published in
BMC Research Notes, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13104-017-3041-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kanako Seto, Kunichika Matsumoto, Takefumi Kitazawa, Shigeru Fujita, Shimpei Hanaoka, Tomonori Hasegawa

Abstract

The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) is a representative, quantitative evaluation tool for evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Recently, AGREE was revised (AGREE II). The continuity of evaluation data obtained from the original version (AGREE I) has not yet been demonstrated. The present study investigated the relationship between data obtained from AGREE I and AGREE II to evaluate the continuity between the two measurement tools. An evaluation team consisting of three trained librarians evaluated 68 CPGs issued in 2011-2012 in Japan using AGREE I and AGREE II. The correlation coefficients for the six domains were: (1) scope and purpose 0.758; (2) stakeholder involvement 0.708; (3) rigor of development 0.982; (4) clarity of presentation 0.702; (5) applicability 0.919; and (6) editorial independence 0.971. The item "Overall Guideline Assessment" was newly introduced in AGREE II. This global item had a correlation coefficient of 0.628 using the six AGREE I domains, and 0.685 using the 23 items. Our results suggest that data obtained from AGREE I can be transferred to AGREE II, and the "Overall Guideline Assessment" data can be determined with high reliability using a standardized score of the 23 items.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 15%
Student > Master 3 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 15%
Student > Postgraduate 3 15%
Other 3 15%
Unknown 2 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 25%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 10%
Computer Science 1 5%
Unknown 5 25%

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 11 December 2017.
All research outputs
#7,585,655
of 12,578,236 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,309
of 2,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,092
of 384,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#159
of 403 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,578,236 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,834 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 384,235 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 403 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 56% of its contemporaries.