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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A review of clinical practice guidelines found that they were often based on evidence of uncertain relevance to primary care patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.05.020 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicholas Steel, Asmaa Abdelhamid, Tim Stokes, Helen Edwards, Robert Fleetcroft, Amanda Howe, Nadeem Qureshi |
| Abstract |
Primary care patients typically have less severe illness than those in hospital and may be overtreated if clinical guideline evidence is inappropriately generalized. We aimed to assess whether guideline recommendations for primary care were based on relevant research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 74 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 16 | 22% |
| Spain | 4 | 5% |
| United States | 4 | 5% |
| Canada | 4 | 5% |
| New Zealand | 3 | 4% |
| Australia | 3 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 3% |
| Japan | 2 | 3% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 25 | 34% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 48 | 65% |
| Scientists | 15 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 2 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 96 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 13% |
| Researcher | 11 | 11% |
| Professor | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 23 | 23% |
| Unknown | 19 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 12% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Engineering | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 16 | 16% |
| Unknown | 23 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 77. 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 April 2022.
All research outputs
#562,337
of 25,703,943 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
#126
of 4,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,313
of 250,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
#1
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,703,943 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 4,822 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 250,842 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 29 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 96% of its contemporaries.