↓ Skip to main content

PRECEPT: an evidence assessment framework for infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control

Overview of attention for article published in Eurosurveillance, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
PRECEPT: an evidence assessment framework for infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control
Published in
Eurosurveillance, October 2017
DOI 10.2807/1560-7917.es.2017.22.40.16-00620
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Harder, Anja Takla, Tim Eckmanns, Simon Ellis, Frode Forland, Roberta James, Joerg J Meerpohl, Antony Morgan, Eva Rehfuess, Holger Schünemann, Teun Zuiderent-Jerak, Helena de Carvalho Gomes, Ole Wichmann

Abstract

Decisions in public health should be based on the best available evidence, reviewed and appraised using a rigorous and transparent methodology. The Project on a Framework for Rating Evidence in Public Health (PRECEPT) defined a methodology for evaluating and grading evidence in infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control that takes different domains and question types into consideration. The methodology rates evidence in four domains: disease burden, risk factors, diagnostics and intervention. The framework guiding it has four steps going from overarching questions to an evidence statement. In step 1, approaches for identifying relevant key areas and developing specific questions to guide systematic evidence searches are described. In step 2, methodological guidance for conducting systematic reviews is provided; 15 study quality appraisal tools are proposed and an algorithm is given for matching a given study design with a tool. In step 3, a standardised evidence-grading scheme using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) methodology is provided, whereby findings are documented in evidence profiles. Step 4 consists of preparing a narrative evidence summary. Users of this framework should be able to evaluate and grade scientific evidence from the four domains in a transparent and reproducible way.

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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 20%
Researcher 4 13%
Other 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 7 23%
Unknown 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 37%
Computer Science 3 10%
Environmental Science 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 10 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 16 April 2019.
All research outputs
#4,171,008
of 25,522,520 outputs
Outputs from Eurosurveillance
#1,176
of 3,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,845
of 331,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Eurosurveillance
#35
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,522,520 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,063 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 46.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 331,337 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.