↓ Skip to main content

Updating contextualized clinical practice guidelines on stroke rehabilitation and low back pain management using a novel assessment framework that standardizes decisions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Updating contextualized clinical practice guidelines on stroke rehabilitation and low back pain management using a novel assessment framework that standardizes decisions
Published in
BMC Research Notes, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-1588-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ephraim D. V. Gambito, Consuelo B. Gonzalez-Suarez, Karen A. Grimmer, Carolina M. Valdecañas, Janine Margarita R. Dizon, Ma. Eulalia J. Beredo, Marcelle Theresa G. Zamora

Abstract

Clinical practice guidelines need to be regularly updated with current literature in order to remain relevant. This paper reports on the approach taken by the Philippine Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine (PARM). This dovetails with its writing guide, which underpinned its foundational work in contextualizing guidelines for stroke and low back pain (LBP) in 2011. Working groups of Filipino rehabilitation physicians and allied health practitioners met to reconsider and modify, where indicated, the 'typical' Filipino patient care pathways established in the foundation guidelines. New clinical guidelines on stroke and low back pain which had been published internationally in the last 3 years were identified using a search of electronic databases. The methodological quality of each guideline was assessed using the iCAHE Guideline Quality Checklist, and only those guidelines which provided full text references, evidence hierarchy and quality appraisal of the included literature, were included in the PARM update. Each of the PARM-endorsed recommendations was then reviewed, in light of new literature presented in the included clinical guidelines. A novel standard updating approach was developed based on the criteria reported by Johnston et al. (Int J Technol Assess Health Care 19(4):646-655, 2003) and then modified to incorporate wording from the foundational PARM writing guide. The new updating tool was debated, pilot-tested and agreed upon by the PARM working groups, before being applied to the guideline updating process. Ten new guidelines on stroke and eleven for low back pain were identified. Guideline quality scores were moderate to good, however not all guidelines comprehensively linked the evidence body underpinning recommendations with the literature. Consequently only five stroke and four low back pain guidelines were included. The modified PARM updating guide was applied by all working groups to ensure standardization of the wording of updated recommendations and the underpinning evidence bases. The updating tool provides a simple, standard and novel approach that incorporates evidence hierarchy and quality, and wordings of recommendations. It could be used efficiently by other guideline updaters particularly in developing countries, where resources for guideline development and updates are limited. When many people are involved in guideline writing, there is always the possibility of 'slippage' in use of wording and interpretation of evidence. The PARM updating tool provides a mechanism for maintaining a standard process for guideline updating processes that can be followed by clinicians with basic training in evidence-based practice principles.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 1%
Unknown 83 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 13 15%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Master 7 8%
Other 20 24%
Unknown 18 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 26%
Neuroscience 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 20 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 July 2016.
All research outputs
#20,335,423
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,564
of 4,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,202
of 285,407 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#146
of 192 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,269 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 285,407 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 192 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.