Title |
The quality of the evidence base for clinical pathway effectiveness: Room for improvement in the design of evaluation trials
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2012
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-12-80 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Thomas Rotter, Leigh Kinsman, Erica James, Andreas Machotta, Ewout W Steyerberg |
Abstract |
The purpose of this article is to report on the quality of the existing evidence base regarding the effectiveness of clinical pathway (CPW) research in the hospital setting. The analysis is based on a recently published Cochrane review of the effectiveness of CPWs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
Indonesia | 1 | 1% |
Colombia | 1 | 1% |
United States | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 85 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 19 | 21% |
Student > Master | 16 | 18% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
Other | 7 | 8% |
Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 4% |
Other | 17 | 19% |
Unknown | 18 | 20% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 36% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 12% |
Computer Science | 7 | 8% |
Neuroscience | 3 | 3% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 3% |
Other | 13 | 14% |
Unknown | 21 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 July 2012.
All research outputs
#20,160,460
of 22,669,724 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,863
of 2,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,401
of 164,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#25
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,669,724 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,000 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 164,518 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.