| Title |
The RIMES Statement: A Checklist to Assess the Quality of Studies Evaluating Risk Minimization Programs for Medicinal Products
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drug Safety, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40264-017-0619-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Meredith Y. Smith, Andrea Russell, Priya Bahri, Peter G. M. Mol, Sarah Frise, Emily Freeman, Elaine H. Morrato |
| Abstract |
Pharmaceutical risk minimization programs involve interventions designed to support safe and appropriate use of medicines. Currently, information regarding the evaluation of these programs is not publicly reported in a standardized and transparent manner. To address this gap, we developed and piloted a quality reporting checklist entitled the Reporting recommendations Intended for pharmaceutical risk Minimization Evaluation Studies (RIMES). Checklist development was guided by three sources: (1) a theoretical framework derived from program theory and process evaluation; (2) public health intervention design and evaluation principles; and (3) a review of existing quality reporting checklists. Two raters independently reviewed 10 recently published (2012-2016) risk minimization program evaluation studies using the proposed checklist. Inter-rater reliability of the checklist was assessed using Cohen's Kappa and Gwet's AC1. A 43-item checklist was generated. Results indicated substantial inter-rater reliability overall (κ = 0.65, AC1 = 0.65) and for three (key information, design and evaluation) of the four subscales (κ ≥ 0.64, AC1 ≥ 0.64). The fourth subscale (implementation) showed low reliability based on Cohen's Kappa, but substantial reliability based on the AC1 (κ = 0.17, AC1 = 0.61). The RIMES statement augments relevant elements from existing quality reporting guidelines with items that address aspects of intervention design, implementation and evaluation specific to pharmaceutical risk minimization programs. Our results show that the RIMES statement reliably measures key dimensions of reporting quality. This tailored checklist is an important first step in improving the reporting quality of risk minimization evaluation studies and may ultimately help to improve the quality of these interventions themselves. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 | 3 | 38% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 13% |
| France | 1 | 13% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 16% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 4% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 18 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 19 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 12 December 2017.
All research outputs
#7,000,240
of 25,295,968 outputs
Outputs from Drug Safety
#748
of 1,805 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,036
of 453,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Safety
#9
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,295,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,805 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 453,513 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 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 57% of its contemporaries.