↓ Skip to main content

Efficiency of pragmatic search strategies to update clinical guidelines recommendations

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2015
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 (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
23 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Efficiency of pragmatic search strategies to update clinical guidelines recommendations
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12874-015-0058-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

L. Martínez García, AJ. Sanabria, I. Araya, J. Lawson, I. Solà, RWM. Vernooij, D. López, E. García Álvarez, MM. Trujillo-Martín, I. Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta, A. Kotzeva, D. Rigau, A. Louro-González, L. Barajas-Nava, P. Díaz del Campo, MD. Estrada, J. Gracia, F. Salcedo-Fernandez, RB. Haynes, P. Alonso-Coello

Abstract

A major challenge in updating clinical guidelines is to efficiently identify new, relevant evidence. We evaluated the efficiency and feasibility of two new approaches: the development of restrictive search strategies using PubMed Clinical Queries for MEDLINE and the use of the PLUS (McMaster Premium Literature Service) database. We evaluated a random sample of recommendations from a national guideline development program and identified the references that would potentially trigger an update (key references) using an exhaustive approach. We designed restrictive search strategies using the minimum number of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and text words required from the original exhaustive search strategies and applying broad and narrow filters. We developed PLUS search strategies, matching Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine (SNOMED) terms with guideline topics. We compared the number of key references retrieved by these approaches with those retrieved by the exhaustive approach. The restrictive approach retrieved 68.1 % fewer references than the exhaustive approach (12,486 versus 39,136), and identified 89.9 % (62/69) of key references and 88 % (22/25) of recommendation updates. The use of PLUS retrieved 88.5 % fewer references than the exhaustive approach (4,486 versus 39,136) and identified substantially fewer key references (18/69, 26.1 %) and fewer recommendation updates (10/25, 40 %). The proposed restrictive approach is a highly efficient and feasible method to identify new evidence that triggers a recommendation update. Searching only in the PLUS database proved to be a suboptimal approach and suggests the need for topic-specific tailoring.

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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 5%
Spain 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 40 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 32%
Librarian 8 18%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Professor 3 7%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 3 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 7 16%

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 18 June 2019.
All research outputs
#1,198,443
of 14,033,149 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#189
of 1,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,322
of 235,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,033,149 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,287 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 235,159 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 1 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