↓ Skip to main content

Development of rapid guidelines: 3. GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist extension for rapid recommendations

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#42 of 1,395)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
73 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
Development of rapid guidelines: 3. GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist extension for rapid recommendations
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12961-018-0330-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca L. Morgan, Ivan Florez, Maicon Falavigna, Sergio Kowalski, Elie A. Akl, Kristina A. Thayer, Andrew Rooney, Holger J. Schünemann

Abstract

Practice guidelines require a substantial investment of resources and time, often taking between 1 and 3 years from conceptualisation to publication. However, urgent situations require the development of recommendations in a shorter timeframe. In this third and final article in the series exploring challenges and solutions in developing rapid guidelines (RGs), we propose guiding principles for the development of RGs. We utilised the Guideline International Network-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist (GDC) as a starting point for elements to consider during RG development. We built on those elements using the findings from a systematic review of guideline manuals, a survey of international organisations conducting RGs, and interviews of guideline developers within WHO. We reviewed initial findings and developed an intermediate list of elements, as well as narrative guidance. We then invited experts to validate the intermediate list, reviewing for placement, brevity and redundancy. We used this iterative process and group consensus to determine the final elements for RG development guidance. Our work identified 21 principles within the topics of the Guideline International Network-McMaster GDC to guide the planning and development of RGs. Principles fell within 15 of the 18 checklist topics, highlighting strategies to streamline and expedite the guideline development process. We defined principles to guide the development of RGs, while maintaining a standardised, rigorous and transparent process. These principles will serve as guidance for guideline developers responding to urgent situations such as public health urgencies. Integration of these principles within currently disseminated guideline development standards will facilitate the use of those tools in situations necessitating RG recommendations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 73 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 16%
Student > Master 10 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Other 6 7%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 29 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 35 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 59. 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 09 August 2023.
All research outputs
#723,096
of 25,552,933 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#42
of 1,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,459
of 340,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#7
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,552,933 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,395 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 340,529 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.