↓ Skip to main content

A Framework for Crafting Clinical Practice Guidelines that are Relevant to the Care and Management of People with Multimorbidity

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
twitter
14 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
130 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
150 Mendeley
Title
A Framework for Crafting Clinical Practice Guidelines that are Relevant to the Care and Management of People with Multimorbidity
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11606-013-2659-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katrin Uhlig, Bruce Leff, David Kent, Sydney Dy, Klara Brunnhuber, Jako S. Burgers, Sheldon Greenfield, Gordon Guyatt, Kevin High, Rosanne Leipzig, Cynthia Mulrow, Kenneth Schmader, Holger Schunemann, Louise C. Walter, James Woodcock, Cynthia M. Boyd

Abstract

Many patients of all ages have multiple conditions, yet clinicians often lack explicit guidance on how to approach clinical decision-making for such people. Most recommendations from clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) focus on the management of single diseases, and may be harmful or impractical for patients with multimorbidity. A major barrier to the development of guidance for people with multimorbidity stems from the fact that the evidence underlying CPGs derives from studies predominantly focused on the management of a single disease. In this paper, the investigators from the Improving Guidelines for Multimorbid Patients Study Group present consensus-based recommendations for guideline developers to make guidelines more useful for the care of people with multimorbidity. In an iterative process informed by review of key literature and experience, we drafted a list of issues and possible approaches for addressing important coexisting conditions in each step of the guideline development process, with a focus on considering relevant interactions between the conditions, their treatments and their outcomes. The recommended approaches address consideration of coexisting conditions at all major steps in CPG development, from nominating and scoping the topic, commissioning the work group, refining key questions, ranking importance of outcomes, conducting systematic reviews, assessing quality of evidence and applicability, summarizing benefits and harms, to formulating recommendations and grading their strength. The list of issues and recommendations was reviewed and refined iteratively by stakeholders. This framework acknowledges the challenges faced by CPG developers who must make complex judgments in the absence of high-quality or direct evidence. These recommendations require validation through implementation, evaluation and refinement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Peru 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 143 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 11%
Student > Master 16 11%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Student > Postgraduate 11 7%
Other 40 27%
Unknown 31 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 7%
Social Sciences 11 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 5%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 22 15%
Unknown 43 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 18 September 2019.
All research outputs
#2,056,828
of 25,331,507 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,561
of 8,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,297
of 318,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#21
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,331,507 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,158 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 318,828 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.