↓ Skip to main content

The need for a rationalist turn in evidence-based medicine

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
The need for a rationalist turn in evidence-based medicine
Published in
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, June 2018
DOI 10.1111/jep.12974
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael P. Kelly

Abstract

When evidence-based medicine (EBM) became established, its dominant rhetoric was empiricist, in spite of rationalist elements in its practice. Exploring some of the key statements about EBM down the years, the paper examines the tensions between empiricism and rationalism and argues for a rationalist turn in EBM to help to develop the next generation of scholarship in the field.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 27%
Professor 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Student > Master 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Other 5 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 40%
Unspecified 4 27%
Social Sciences 2 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Other 1 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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
#3,610,271
of 13,177,477 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
#298
of 976 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,478
of 268,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
#19
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,177,477 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 976 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 268,317 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.