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 |
Interventional Radiology Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations for Neurovascular Disorders Are Not Based on High-Quality Systematic Reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
American Journal of Neuroradiology, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3174/ajnr.a5079 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A.B. Chong, M. Taylor, G. Schubert, M. Vassar |
| Abstract |
In recent years, clinical practice guidelines have been criticized for biased interpretations of research evidence, and interventional radiology is no exception. Our aim was to evaluate the methodologic quality and transparency of reporting in systematic reviews used as evidence in interventional radiology clinical practice guidelines for neurovascular disorders from the Society of Interventional Radiology. Our sources were 9 neurovascular disorder clinical practice guidelines from the Society of Interventional Radiology. We selected 65 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) tools were used to assess the methodologic quality and reporting transparency of systematic reviews. Radial plots were created on the basis of average scores for PRISMA and AMSTAR items. On the basis of AMSTAR scores, 3 (4.62%) reviews were high-quality, 28 reviews (43.08%) were moderate-quality, and 34 reviews (52.31%) were low-quality, with an average quality score of 3.66 (34.32%; minimum, 0%; maximum, 81.82%). The average PRISMA score was 18.18 (69.41%). We were unable to obtain previous versions for 8 reviews, 7 of which were from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodologic quality of systematic reviews needs to be improved. Although reporting clarity was much better than the methodologic quality, it still has room for improvement. The methodologic quality and transparency of reporting did not vary much among clinical practice guidelines. This study can also be applied to other medical specialties to examine the quality of studies used as evidence in their own clinical practice guidelines. |
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% |
| Canada | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 18 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 21% |
| Other | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 37% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 27 January 2024.
All research outputs
#14,192,596
of 25,243,120 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Neuroradiology
#2,767
of 5,227 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,999
of 431,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Neuroradiology
#44
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,243,120 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,227 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 431,784 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.