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 |
Validation and reliability of a guideline appraisal mini-checklist for daily practice use
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-016-0139-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrea Siebenhofer, Thomas Semlitsch, Thomas Herborn, Ulrich Siering, Ina Kopp, Johannes Hartig |
| Abstract |
The use of comprehensive instruments for guideline appraisal is time-consuming and requires highly qualified personnel. Since practicing physicians are generally busy, the rapid-assessment Mini-Checklist (MiChe) tool was developed to help them evaluate the quality and utility of guidelines quickly. The aim of this study was to validate the MiChe in comparison to the AGREE II instrument and to determine its reliability as a tool for guideline appraisal. Ten guidelines that are relevant to general practice and had been evaluated by 2 independent reviewers using AGREE II were assessed by 12 GPs using the MiChe. The strength of the correlation between average MiChe ratings and AGREE II total scores was estimated using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Inter-rater reliability for MiChe overall quality ratings and endorsements was determined using intra-class correlations (ICC) and Kendall's W for ordinal recommendations. To determine the GPs' satisfaction with the MiChe, mean scores for the ratings on five questions were computed using a six-point Likert scale. The study showed a high level of agreement between MiChe and AGREE II in the quality rating of guidelines (Pearson's r = 0.872; P < 0.001). Inter-rater-reliability for overall MiChe ratings (ICC = 0.755; P < 0.001) and endorsements (Kendall's W = 0.73; P < 0.001) were high. The mean time required for guideline assessment was less than 15 min und user satisfaction was generally high. The MiChe performed well in comparison to AGREE II and is suitable for the rapid evaluation of guideline quality and utility in practice. German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00007480. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 25% |
| Latvia | 1 | 25% |
| Ireland | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 50 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Researcher | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 18% |
| Unknown | 17 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 19 | 37% |
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 04 April 2016.
All research outputs
#14,850,834
of 24,892,887 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,420
of 2,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,617
of 306,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#15
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,892,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,219 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 306,367 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.