↓ Skip to main content

Walk-in clinics versus physician offices and emergency rooms for urgent care and chronic disease management

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Walk-in clinics versus physician offices and emergency rooms for urgent care and chronic disease management
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011774.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Connie E Chen, Christopher T Chen, Jia Hu, Ateev Mehrotra

Abstract

Walk-in clinics are growing in popularity around the world as a substitute for traditional medical care delivered in physician offices and emergency rooms, but their clinical efficacy is unclear. To assess the quality of care and patient satisfaction of walk-in clinics compared to that of traditional physician offices and emergency rooms for people who present with basic medical complaints for either acute or chronic issues. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases, and two trials registers on 22 March 2016 together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We applied no restrictions on language, publication type, or publication year. Study design: randomized trials, non-randomized trials, and controlled before-after studies. standalone physical clinics not requiring advance appointments or registration, that provided basic medical care without expectation of follow-up. Comparisons: traditional primary care practices or emergency rooms. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. The literature search identified 6587 citations, of which we considered 65 to be potentially relevant. We reviewed the abstracts of all 65 potentially relevant studies and retrieved the full texts of 12 articles thought to fit our study criteria. However, following independent author assessment of the full texts, we excluded all 12 articles. Controlled trial evidence about the mortality, morbidity, quality of care, and patient satisfaction of walk-in clinics is currently not available.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 19%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Librarian 4 7%
Researcher 3 6%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 8 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 15%
Psychology 5 9%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 10 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 05 April 2018.
All research outputs
#1,431,637
of 12,761,472 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,083
of 10,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,663
of 252,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#116
of 233 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,761,472 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,424 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 252,695 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 233 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 50% of its contemporaries.