You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Overview of systematic reviews of therapeutic ranges: methodologies and recommendations for practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-017-0363-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lewis Cooney, Yoon K. Loke, Su Golder, Jamie Kirkham, Andrea Jorgensen, Ian Sinha, Daniel Hawcutt |
| Abstract |
Many medicines are dosed to achieve a particular therapeutic range, and monitored using therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). The evidence base for a therapeutic range can be evaluated using systematic reviews, to ensure it continues to reflect current indications, doses, routes and formulations, as well as updated adverse effect data. There is no consensus on the optimal methodology for systematic reviews of therapeutic ranges. An overview of systematic reviews of therapeutic ranges was undertaken. The following databases were used: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effects (DARE) and MEDLINE. The published methodologies used when systematically reviewing the therapeutic range of a drug were analyzed. Step by step recommendations to optimize such systematic reviews are proposed. Ten systematic reviews that investigated the correlation between serum concentrations and clinical outcomes encompassing a variety of medicines and indications were assessed. There were significant variations in the methodologies used (including the search terms used, data extraction methods, assessment of bias, and statistical analyses undertaken). Therapeutic ranges should be population and indication specific and based on clinically relevant outcomes. Recommendations for future systematic reviews based on these findings have been developed. Evidence based therapeutic ranges have the potential to improve TDM practice. Current systematic reviews investigating therapeutic ranges have highly variable methodologies and there is no consensus of best practice when undertaking systematic reviews in this field. These recommendations meet a need not addressed by standard protocols. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 | 9 | 64% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 7% |
| Portugal | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 3 | 21% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 57% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 36% |
| Scientists | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 65 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 23% |
| Unknown | 23 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 22% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 9 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 14% |
| Unknown | 24 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 192. 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 13 October 2021.
All research outputs
#180,739
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#8
of 2,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,207
of 318,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,074 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 318,538 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.