↓ Skip to main content

Marcos GRADE de la evidencia a la decisión (EtD): un enfoque sistemático y transparente para tomar decisiones sanitarias bien informadas. 1: Introducción

Overview of attention for article published in Gaceta Sanitaria, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Marcos GRADE de la evidencia a la decisión (EtD): un enfoque sistemático y transparente para tomar decisiones sanitarias bien informadas. 1: Introducción
Published in
Gaceta Sanitaria, March 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.gaceta.2017.02.010
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pablo Alonso-Coello, Holger J. Schünemann, Jenny Moberg, Romina Brignardello-Petersen, Elie A. Akl, Marina Davoli, Shaun Treweek, Reem A. Mustafa, Gabriel Rada, Sarah Rosenbaum, Angela Morelli, Gordon H. Guyatt, Andrew D. Oxman

Abstract

Clinicians, guideline developers, and policymakers sometimes neglect important criteria, give undue weight to criteria, and do not use the best available evidence to inform their judgments. Explicit and transparent systems for decision making can help to ensure that all important criteria are considered and that decisions are informed by the best available research evidence. The GRADE Working Group has developed Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks for the different type of recommendations or decisions. The purpose of EtD frameworks is to help people use evidence in a structured and transparent way to inform decisions in the context of clinical recommendations, coverage decisions, and health system or public health recommendations and decisions. EtD frameworks have a common structure that includes formulation of the question, an assessment of the evidence, and drawing conclusions, though there are some differences between frameworks for each type of decision. EtD frameworks inform users about the judgments that were made and the evidence supporting those judgments by making the basis for decisions transparent to target audiences. EtD frameworks also facilitate dissemination of recommendations and enable decision makers in other jurisdictions to adopt recommendations or decisions, or adapt them to their context. This article is a translation of the original article published in British Medical Journal. The EtD frameworks are currently used in the Clinical Practice Guideline Programme of the Spanish National Health System, co-ordinated by GuíaSalud. The Fundación Dr. Antonio Esteve has assumed the copyright license as well as the translation of the original article into Spanish. The translation was carried out by María Victoria Leo Rosas and proofread by Andrea Cervera and Pablo Alonso-Coello.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 21%
Student > Master 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Professor 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 15 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Computer Science 3 5%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 20 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 January 2021.
All research outputs
#5,556,751
of 19,862,278 outputs
Outputs from Gaceta Sanitaria
#306
of 912 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,293
of 285,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gaceta Sanitaria
#8
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,862,278 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 912 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 285,526 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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.