↓ Skip to main content

Using the modified Delphi method to establish clinical consensus for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with rotator cuff pathology

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
patent
1 patent
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
305 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
478 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
Using the modified Delphi method to establish clinical consensus for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with rotator cuff pathology
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0165-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Breda H. Eubank, Nicholas G. Mohtadi, Mark R. Lafave, J. Preston Wiley, Aaron J. Bois, Richard S. Boorman, David M. Sheps

Abstract

Patients presenting to the healthcare system with rotator cuff pathology do not always receive high quality care. High quality care occurs when a patient receives care that is accessible, appropriate, acceptable, effective, efficient, and safe. The aim of this study was twofold: 1) to develop a clinical pathway algorithm that sets forth a stepwise process for making decisions about the diagnosis and treatment of rotator cuff pathology presenting to primary, secondary, and tertiary healthcare settings; and 2) to establish clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of rotator cuff pathology to inform decision-making processes within the algorithm. A three-step modified Delphi method was used to establish consensus. Fourteen experts representing athletic therapy, physiotherapy, sport medicine, and orthopaedic surgery were invited to participate as the expert panel. In round 1, 123 best practice statements were distributed to the panel. Panel members were asked to mark "agree" or "disagree" beside each statement, and provide comments. The same voting method was again used for round 2. Round 3 consisted of a final face-to-face meeting. In round 1, statements were grouped and reduced to 44 statements that met consensus. In round 2, five statements reached consensus. In round 3, ten statements reached consensus. Consensus was reached for 59 statements representing five domains: screening, diagnosis, physical examination, investigations, and treatment. The final face-to-face meeting was also used to develop clinical pathway algorithms (i.e., clinical care pathways) for three types of rotator cuff pathology: acute, chronic, and acute-on-chronic. This consensus guideline will help to standardize care, provide guidance on the diagnosis and treatment of rotator cuff pathology, and assist in clinical decision-making for all healthcare professionals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 478 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 478 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 61 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 59 12%
Researcher 50 10%
Other 36 8%
Student > Bachelor 35 7%
Other 97 20%
Unknown 140 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 112 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 79 17%
Social Sciences 17 4%
Engineering 11 2%
Sports and Recreations 10 2%
Other 86 18%
Unknown 163 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 08 August 2023.
All research outputs
#4,428,896
of 24,257,963 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#711
of 2,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,778
of 339,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#7
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,257,963 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,154 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 339,076 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.