↓ Skip to main content

Bringing cohort studies to the bedside: framework for a 'green button' to support clinical decision-making.

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#20 of 376)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
23 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
Title
Bringing cohort studies to the bedside: framework for a 'green button' to support clinical decision-making.
Published in
Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, May 2015
DOI 10.2217/cer.15.12
Pubmed ID
Authors

Blanca Gallego, Scott R Walter, Richard O Day, Adam G Dunn, Vijay Sivaraman, Nigam Shah, Christopher A Longhurst, Enrico Coiera, Gallego, Blanca, Walter, Scott R, Day, Richard O, Dunn, Adam G, Sivaraman, Vijay, Shah, Nigam, Longhurst, Christopher A, Coiera, Enrico

Abstract

When providing care, clinicians are expected to take note of clinical practice guidelines, which offer recommendations based on the available evidence. However, guidelines may not apply to individual patients with comorbidities, as they are typically excluded from clinical trials. Guidelines also tend not to provide relevant evidence on risks, secondary effects and long-term outcomes. Querying the electronic health records of similar patients may for many provide an alternate source of evidence to inform decision-making. It is important to develop methods to support these personalized observational studies at the point-of-care, to understand when these methods may provide valid results, and to validate and integrate these findings with those from clinical trials.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 %
United States 6 11%
Spain 2 4%
Mexico 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Sweden 1 2%
Unknown 43 80%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 30%
Researcher 13 24%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 11%
Other 5 9%
Student > Master 4 7%
Other 10 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 18 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 30%
Psychology 4 7%
Engineering 3 6%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Other 10 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 03 July 2018.
All research outputs
#923,713
of 12,340,937 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
#20
of 376 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,236
of 227,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,340,937 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 376 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. 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 227,979 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them