| 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 |
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 23% |
| Australia | 4 | 18% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 18% |
| France | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 50% |
| Scientists | 7 | 32% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 18% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 7% |
| Mexico | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 77 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 28% |
| Researcher | 15 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 16 | 19% |
| Unknown | 14 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 27% |
| Computer Science | 22 | 26% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 5% |
| Engineering | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 16% |
| Unknown | 15 | 17% |
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
#2,586,961
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
#56
of 832 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,250
of 279,023 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
#1
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 832 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 279,023 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 90% of its contemporaries.