| Title |
Effectiveness guidance document (EGD) for acupuncture research - a consensus document for conducting trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6882-12-148 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claudia M Witt, Mikel Aickin, Trini Baca, Dan Cherkin, Mary N Haan, Richard Hammerschlag, Jason Jishun Hao, George A Kaplan, Lixing Lao, Terri McKay, Beverly Pierce, David Riley, Cheryl Ritenbaugh, Kevin Thorpe, Sean Tunis, Jed Weissberg, Brian M Berman, Collaborators |
| Abstract |
There is a need for more Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) to strengthen the evidence base for clinical and policy decision-making. Effectiveness Guidance Documents (EGD) are targeted to clinical researchers. The aim of this EGD is to provide specific recommendations for the design of prospective acupuncture studies to support optimal use of resources for generating evidence that will inform stakeholder decision-making. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 83 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 9% |
| Professor | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 20 | 23% |
| Unknown | 16 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 43 | 50% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 12% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 13% |
| Unknown | 14 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 30 August 2014.
All research outputs
#4,573,063
of 22,678,224 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#852
of 3,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,091
of 169,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#21
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,678,224 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,618 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 169,179 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 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 68% of its contemporaries.