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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis – clinical management guided by the evidence-based GRADE approach: what arguments can be made against transparency in guideline development?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-016-0563-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bram Rochwerg, Holger J. Schünemann, Ganesh Raghu |
| Abstract |
Evidence-based guidelines have undergone an incredible transformation over the last number of years. Significant advances include explicit linkages of systematic evidence summaries to the strength and direction of recommendations, consideration of all patient-important factors, transparent reporting of the recommendation generation process including conflict of interest management strategies and the production of clinical practice guidelines which use simple and clear language. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology provides a framework for guideline development and was employed to produce the recently published ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT update on treatment for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Herein we discuss the advantages of using an evidence-based approach for guideline development using the IPF process and resultant document as an example. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 15% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 15% |
| Kenya | 1 | 8% |
| Italy | 1 | 8% |
| Mexico | 1 | 8% |
| United States | 1 | 8% |
| Australia | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 38% |
| Scientists | 5 | 38% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 39 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 20% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 50% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 30 July 2019.
All research outputs
#4,853,677
of 23,929,753 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,240
of 3,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,254
of 406,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#36
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,929,753 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,618 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.6. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 406,467 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.