↓ Skip to main content

Guidance for updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review of methodological handbooks

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Guidance for updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review of methodological handbooks
Published in
Implementation Science, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-9-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robin WM Vernooij, Andrea Juliana Sanabria, Ivan Solà, Pablo Alonso-Coello, Laura Martínez García

Abstract

Updating clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is a crucial process for maintaining the validity of recommendations. Methodological handbooks should provide guidance on both developing and updating CPGs. However, little is known about the updating guidance provided by these handbooks.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 3 4%
United Kingdom 3 4%
Spain 2 3%
New Zealand 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Madagascar 1 1%
Unknown 66 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 21%
Student > Master 12 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 23 29%
Unknown 3 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 8%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Computer Science 4 5%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 11 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 46. 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 03 April 2019.
All research outputs
#382,503
of 13,571,692 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#83
of 1,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,367
of 255,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#5
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,571,692 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 1,394 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 255,105 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.