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 |
Guidelines for Guidelines: Are They Up to the Task? A Comparative Assessment of Clinical Practice Guideline Development Handbooks
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0049864 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shabnam Ansari, Arash Rashidian |
| Abstract |
We conducted a comparative review of clinical practice guideline development handbooks. We aimed to identify the main guideline development tasks, assign weights to the importance of each task using expert opinions and identify the handbooks that provided a comprehensive coverage of the tasks. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 | 1 | 13% |
| Canada | 1 | 13% |
| Egypt | 1 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Peru | 2 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Colombia | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 75 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 23 | 28% |
| Unknown | 9 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 19% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Psychology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 12% |
| Unknown | 19 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 29 August 2019.
All research outputs
#3,698,533
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#46,017
of 202,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,931
of 281,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#831
of 4,683 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 202,084 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 281,279 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,683 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.