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 |
Expertise in evidence-based medicine: a tale of three models
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13010-018-0055-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah Wieten |
| Abstract |
Expertise has been a contentious concept in Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM). Especially in the early days of the movement, expertise was taken to be exactly what EBM was rebelling against-the authoritarian pronouncements about "best" interventions dutifully learned in medical schools, sometimes with dire consequences. Since then, some proponents of EBM have tried various ways of reincorporating the idea of expertise into EBM, with mixed results. However, questions remain. Is expertise evidence? If not, what is it good for, if anything? In this article, I describe and analyze the three historical models of expertise integration in EBM and discuss the difficulties in putting each into practice. I also examine accounts of expertise from disciplines outside of medicine, including philosophy, sociology, psychology, and science and technology studies to see if these accounts can strengthen and clarify what EBM has to say about expertise. Of the accounts of expertise discussed here, the Collins and Evans account can do most to clarify the concept of expertise in EBM. With some additional clarification from EBM proper, theoretical resources from other disciplines might augment the current EBM account of expertise. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 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 States | 6 | 16% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 11% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Maldives | 1 | 3% |
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Ireland | 1 | 3% |
| South Africa | 1 | 3% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 17 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 27 | 73% |
| Scientists | 7 | 19% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 149 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 23 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 7% |
| Researcher | 9 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 25 | 17% |
| Unknown | 57 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 24 | 16% |
| Philosophy | 7 | 5% |
| Psychology | 4 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 21 | 14% |
| Unknown | 59 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 05 September 2023.
All research outputs
#1,287,349
of 24,938,276 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#27
of 231 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,498
of 450,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,938,276 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 231 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 450,563 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.