↓ Skip to main content

Die TIDieR Checkliste und Anleitung – ein Instrument für eine verbesserte Interventionsbeschreibung und Replikation

Overview of attention for article published in Das Gesundheitswesen, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1600 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Die TIDieR Checkliste und Anleitung – ein Instrument für eine verbesserte Interventionsbeschreibung und Replikation
Published in
Das Gesundheitswesen, January 2016
DOI 10.1055/s-0041-111066
Pubmed ID
Authors

T. Hoffmann, P. Glasziou, I. Boutron, R. Milne, R. Perera, D. Moher, D. Altman, V. Barbour, H. Macdonald, M. Johnston, S. Lamb, M. Dixon-Woods, P. McCulloch, J. Wyatt, A.-W. Chan, S. Michie

Abstract

Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face-to-face panel meeting. The resultant 12-item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who intervened, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actually carried out)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with a detailed explanation of each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure the accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 1,600 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 28 2%
United States 5 <1%
Spain 4 <1%
Portugal 3 <1%
France 3 <1%
Australia 3 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Other 13 <1%
Unknown 1535 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 314 20%
Researcher 308 19%
Student > Master 239 15%
Unspecified 155 10%
Other 101 6%
Other 483 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 511 32%
Unspecified 274 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 238 15%
Psychology 228 14%
Social Sciences 128 8%
Other 221 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 April 2018.
All research outputs
#7,739,942
of 12,834,493 outputs
Outputs from Das Gesundheitswesen
#62
of 177 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,141
of 334,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Das Gesundheitswesen
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,834,493 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 177 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 334,380 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 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