↓ Skip to main content

Telemedicine for general practice: a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
Title
Telemedicine for general practice: a systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0115-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin J. Downes, Merehau C. Mervin, Joshua M. Byrnes, Paul A. Scuffham

Abstract

The use of information technology in healthcare is fast becoming an alternative and supporting method of providing many forms of services in a healthcare and health management setting. Telephone technology is used readily to deliver services such as disease management, consultations and behaviour coaching. Telemedicine provides a promising alternative and supporting service for face-to-face general practice care. The aim of this review is to utilise a systematic review to collate evidence on the use of telemedicine as a lead in and an alternative to general practice visits. A systematic search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform will be performed using the search terms for the intervention (telemedicine) and the comparator (general practice) to search the databases. The systematic review aims to identify randomised control trials; however, if none are identified, an updated search will be conducted to identify lower levels of evidence. Papers will be reviewed and assessed for quality and data extracted using two reviewers; if consensus is required, a third reviewer will be consulted. If applicable, a meta-analysis of relevant outcomes will be conducted. The protocol has been reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. The intervention and comparator have the potential to provide a vast range of healthcare services to a range of diseases and health conditions. There is likely to be difficulty in identifying relevant clinical outcome measures for the patient population. A range of outcome measures will therefore be collected in the data extraction phase. PROSPERO CRD42015025225.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Philippines 1 1%
Unknown 82 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 20%
Student > Master 13 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 18 22%
Unknown 14 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 7%
Engineering 6 7%
Psychology 5 6%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 13 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 15 February 2016.
All research outputs
#8,261,756
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,408
of 2,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,963
of 289,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#22
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,228 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 289,645 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.