↓ Skip to main content

Methods for the Drug Effectiveness Review Project

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Methods for the Drug Effectiveness Review Project
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-12-140
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marian S McDonagh, Daniel E Jonas, Gerald Gartlehner, Alison Little, Kim Peterson, Susan Carson, Mark Gibson, Mark Helfand

Abstract

The Drug Effectiveness Review Project was initiated in 2003 in response to dramatic increases in the cost of pharmaceuticals, which lessened the purchasing power of state Medicaid budgets. A collaborative group of state Medicaid agencies and other organizations formed to commission high-quality comparative effectiveness reviews to inform evidence-based decisions about drugs that would be available to Medicaid recipients. The Project is coordinated by the Center for Evidence-based Policy (CEbP) at Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU), and the systematic reviews are undertaken by the Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) at OHSU and at the University of North Carolina. The reviews adhere to high standards for comparative effectiveness reviews. Because the investigators have direct, regular communication with policy-makers, the reports have direct impact on policy and decision-making, unlike many systematic reviews. The Project was an innovator of methods to involve stakeholders and continues to develop its methods in conducting reviews that are highly relevant to policy-makers. The methods used for selecting topics, developing key questions, searching, determining eligibility of studies, assessing study quality, conducting qualitative and quantitative syntheses, rating the strength of evidence, and summarizing findings are described. In addition, our on-going interactions with the policy-makers that use the reports are described.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Other 3 9%
Professor 2 6%
Other 7 20%
Unknown 9 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 23%
Social Sciences 4 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 10 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 26 September 2012.
All research outputs
#13,368,181
of 22,679,690 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,277
of 2,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,956
of 168,586 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#16
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,679,690 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 2,001 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. 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 168,586 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.