↓ Skip to main content

A proposed framework for developing quality assessment tools

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#16 of 1,432)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
238 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
A proposed framework for developing quality assessment tools
Published in
Systematic Reviews, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0604-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Penny Whiting, Robert Wolff, Susan Mallett, Iveta Simera, Jelena Savović

Abstract

Assessment of the quality of included studies is an essential component of any systematic review. A formal quality assessment is facilitated by using a structured tool. There are currently no guidelines available for researchers wanting to develop a new quality assessment tool. This paper provides a framework for developing quality assessment tools based on our experiences of developing a variety of quality assessment tools for studies of differing designs over the last 14 years. We have also drawn on experience from the work of the EQUATOR Network in producing guidance for developing reporting guidelines. We do not recommend a single 'best' approach. Instead, we provide a general framework with suggestions as to how the different stages can be approached. Our proposed framework is based around three key stages: initial steps, tool development and dissemination. We recommend that anyone who would like to develop a new quality assessment tool follow the stages outlined in this paper. We hope that our proposed framework will increase the number of tools developed using robust methods.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 238 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 12%
Researcher 4 8%
Lecturer 3 6%
Other 13 27%
Unknown 8 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 14%
Psychology 7 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Unspecified 3 6%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 8 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 138. 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 23 May 2018.
All research outputs
#148,127
of 16,012,879 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#16
of 1,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,667
of 325,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#3
of 171 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,012,879 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,432 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 325,175 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 171 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 98% of its contemporaries.