↓ Skip to main content

Standardising evidence strength grading for recommendations from multiple clinical practice guidelines: a South African case study

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 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
Standardising evidence strength grading for recommendations from multiple clinical practice guidelines: a South African case study
Published in
Implementation Science, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13012-018-0803-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

K. Grimmer, Q. Louw, J. M. Dizon, S-M van Niekerk, D. Ernstzen, C. Wiysonge

Abstract

Significant resources are required to write de novo clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). There are many freely-available CPGs internationally, for many health conditions. Developing countries rarely have the resources for de novo CPGs, and there could be efficiencies in using CPGs developed elsewhere. This paper outlines a novel process developed and tested in a resource-constrained country (South Africa) to synthesise findings from multiple international CPGs on allied health (AH) stroke rehabilitation. Methodologists, policy-makers, content experts and consumers collaborated to describe the pathway of an 'average' stroke patient through the South African public healthcare system and pose questions about best-practice stroke rehabilitation along this pathway. A comprehensive search identified international guidance documents published since January 2010. These were scanned for relevance to the South African AH stroke rehabilitation questions and critically appraised for methodological quality. Recommendations were extracted from guidance documents for each question. Strength of the body of evidence (SoBE) gradings underpinning recommendations were standardised, and composite recommendations were developed using qualitative synthesis. An algorithm was developed to guide assignment of overall SoBE gradings to composite recommendations. Sixteen CPGs were identified, and all were included, as they answered different project questions differently. Methodological quality varied and was unrelated to currency. Seven clusters, outlining 20 composite recommendations were proposed (organise for best practice rehabilitation, operationalise strategies for best practice communication throughout the patient journey, admit to an acute hospital, refer to inpatient rehabilitation, action inpatient rehabilitation, discharge from inpatient rehabilitation and longer-term community-based rehabilitation). The methodological development process, tested by writing a South African AH stroke rehabilitation guideline from existing evidence sources, took 9 months. The process was efficient, collaborative, effective, rewarding and positive. Using the proposed methods, similar synthesis of existing evidence could be conducted in shorter time periods, in other resource-constrained countries, avoiding the need for expensive and time-consuming de novo CPG development.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Master 11 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 11%
Researcher 10 10%
Lecturer 9 9%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 28 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 33 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 23%
Neuroscience 5 5%
Psychology 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 29 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 12 October 2018.
All research outputs
#5,785,703
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,000
of 1,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,857
of 335,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#27
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,726 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 335,210 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.