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 |
Trading certainty for speed - how much uncertainty are decisionmakers and guideline developers willing to accept when using rapid reviews: an international survey
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-017-0406-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gernot Wagner, Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit, Judith Greimel, Agustín Ciapponi, Gerald Gartlehner |
| Abstract |
Decisionmakers and guideline developers demand rapid syntheses of the evidence when time sensitive evidence-informed decisions are required. A potential trade-off of such rapid reviews is that their results can have less reliability than results of systematic reviews that can lead to an increased risk of making incorrect decisions or recommendations. We sought to determine how much incremental uncertainty about the correctness of an answer guideline developers and health policy decisionmakers are willing to accept in exchange for a rapid evidence-synthesis. Employing a purposive sample, we conducted an international web-based, anonymous survey of decisionmakers and guideline developers. Based on a clinical treatment, a public health, and a clinical prevention scenario, participants indicated the maximum risk of getting an incorrect answer from a rapid review that they would be willing to accept. We carefully reviewed data and performed descriptive statistical analyses. In total, 325 (58.5%) of 556 participants completed our survey and were eligible for analysis. The median acceptable incremental risk for getting an incorrect answer from a rapid review across all three scenarios was 10.0% (interquartile range [IQR] 5.0-15.0). Acceptable risks were similar for the clinical treatment (n = 313, median 10.0% [IQR 5.0-15.0]) and the public health scenarios (n = 320, median 10.0% [IQR 5.0-15.0]) and lower for the clinical prevention scenario (n = 312, median 6.5% [IQR 5.0-10.5]). Findings suggest that decisionmakers are willing to accept some trade-off in validity in exchange for a rapid review. Nevertheless, they expect the validity of rapid reviews to come close to that of systematic reviews. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 59 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 14 | 24% |
| United Kingdom | 10 | 17% |
| Ireland | 5 | 8% |
| Netherlands | 3 | 5% |
| New Zealand | 2 | 3% |
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Chile | 1 | 2% |
| Austria | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 17 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 36 | 61% |
| Scientists | 17 | 29% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 20% |
| Unknown | 9 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 11% |
| Psychology | 5 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 18% |
| Unknown | 13 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 July 2018.
All research outputs
#1,186,928
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#126
of 2,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,550
of 327,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#5
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,301 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 327,720 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 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 92% of its contemporaries.