↓ Skip to main content

Editorial: can China master the guideline challenge?

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
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.
Title
Editorial: can China master the guideline challenge?
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1478-4505-11-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kehu Yang, Yaolong Chen, Youping Li, Holger J Schünemann, Members of the Lanzhou International Guideline Symposium

Abstract

China is experiencing increased health care use and expenditures, without sufficient controls to ensure quality and value. Transparent, cost-conscious and patient-centered guidelines based on the best available evidence could help establishing these quality and practice measures.We examined how guidelines could support the Chinese health reform. Specifically, we summarized the current state of the art and related challenges in guideline development and explored possible solutions in the context of the Chinese health reform. China currently lacks capacity for evidence-based guideline development and coordination by a central agency. Most Chinese guideline users rely on recommendations developed by professional groups that lack demonstration of transparency (including conflict of interest management and evidence synthesis) and quality. These deficiencies appear larger than in other regions of the world. In addition, misperceptions about the role of guidelines in assisting practitioners as opposed to providing rules requiring adherence, and a perception that traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) cannot be appropriately incorporated in guidelines are present.China's capacity could be strengthened by a central guideline agency to provide or coordinate evidence synthesis for guideline development and to oversee the work of guideline developers. China can build on what is known and work with the international community to develop methods to meet the challenges of evidence-based guideline development.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 32 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 21%
Student > Master 6 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 4 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 39%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 9%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 7 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 January 2013.
All research outputs
#13,375,146
of 22,691,736 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#961
of 1,205 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,216
of 282,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#7
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,691,736 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,205 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 282,271 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.