↓ Skip to main content

Marcos GRADE de la evidencia a la decisión (EtD): un enfoque sistemático y transparente para tomar decisiones sanitarias bien informadas. 2: Guías de práctica clínica

Overview of attention for article published in Gaceta Sanitaria, March 2018
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 (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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. 2: Guías de práctica clínica
Published in
Gaceta Sanitaria, March 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.gaceta.2017.03.008
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pablo Alonso-Coello, Andrew D. Oxman, Jenny Moberg, Romina Brignardello-Petersen, Elie A. Akl, Marina Davoli, Shaun Treweek, Reem A. Mustafa, Per O. Vandvik, Joerg Meerpohl, Gordon H. Guyatt, Holger J. Schünemann

Abstract

Clinicians do not have the time or resources to consider the underlying evidence for the myriad decisions they must make each day and, as a consequence, rely on recommendations from clinical practice guidelines. Guideline panels should consider all the relevant factors (criteria) that influence a decision or recommendation in a structured, explicit, and transparent way and provide clinicians with clear and actionable recommendations. In this article, we will describe the EtD frameworks for clinical practice recommendations. The general structure of the EtD framework for clinical recommendations is similar to EtD frameworks for other types of recommendations and decisions, and includes formulation of the question, an assessment of the different criteria, and conclusions. Clinical recommendations require considering criteria differently, depending on whether an individual patient or a population perspective is taken. For example, from an individual patient's perspective, out-of-pocket costs are an important consideration, whereas, from a population perspective, resource use (not only out-of-pocket costs) and cost effectiveness are important. From a population perspective, equity, acceptability, and feasibility are also important considerations, whereas the importance of these criteria is often limited from an individual patient perspective. Specific subgroups for which different recommendations may be required should be clearly identified and considered in relation to each criterion because judgments might vary across subgroups. This article is a translation of the original article published in the 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 19%
Student > Master 6 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Professor 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 10 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Computer Science 2 6%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 9 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 09 October 2017.
All research outputs
#1,327,847
of 13,651,025 outputs
Outputs from Gaceta Sanitaria
#54
of 626 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,559
of 270,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gaceta Sanitaria
#3
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,651,025 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 626 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 270,626 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.