↓ Skip to main content

Quality and safety of medication use in primary care: consensus validation of a new set of explicit medication assessment criteria and prioritisation of topics for improvement

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Clinical Pharmacology, February 2012
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 (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
171 Mendeley
Title
Quality and safety of medication use in primary care: consensus validation of a new set of explicit medication assessment criteria and prioritisation of topics for improvement
Published in
BMC Clinical Pharmacology, February 2012
DOI 10.1186/1472-6904-12-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tobias Dreischulte, Aileen M Grant, Colin McCowan, John J McAnaw, Bruce Guthrie

Abstract

Addressing the problem of preventable drug related morbidity (PDRM) in primary care is a challenge for health care systems internationally. The increasing implementation of clinical information systems in the UK and internationally provide new opportunities to systematically identify patients at risk of PDRM for targeted medication review. The objectives of this study were (1) to develop a set of explicit medication assessment criteria to identify patients with sub-optimally effective or high-risk medication use from electronic medical records and (2) to identify medication use topics that are perceived by UK primary care clinicians to be priorities for quality and safety improvement initiatives.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Brazil 2 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 161 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 17%
Researcher 26 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 13%
Student > Postgraduate 17 10%
Student > Bachelor 14 8%
Other 33 19%
Unknown 30 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 75 44%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 16 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 5%
Social Sciences 9 5%
Psychology 5 3%
Other 17 10%
Unknown 40 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 March 2016.
All research outputs
#3,043,661
of 22,662,201 outputs
Outputs from BMC Clinical Pharmacology
#15
of 56 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,329
of 247,686 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Clinical Pharmacology
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,662,201 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 56 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 247,686 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.