Circular instead of hierarchical: methodological principles for the evaluation of complex interventions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2006
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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
135 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Circular instead of hierarchical: methodological principles for the evaluation of complex interventions
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2006
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-6-29
Pubmed ID
Authors

Harald Walach, Torkel Falkenberg, Vinjar Fønnebø, George Lewith, Wayne B Jonas

Abstract

The reasoning behind evaluating medical interventions is that a hierarchy of methods exists which successively produce improved and therefore more rigorous evidence based medicine upon which to make clinical decisions. At the foundation of this hierarchy are case studies, retrospective and prospective case series, followed by cohort studies with historical and concomitant non-randomized controls. Open-label randomized controlled studies (RCTs), and finally blinded, placebo-controlled RCTs, which offer most internal validity are considered the most reliable evidence. Rigorous RCTs remove bias. Evidence from RCTs forms the basis of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. This hierarchy, founded on a pharmacological model of therapy, is generalized to other interventions which may be complex and non-pharmacological (healing, acupuncture and surgery).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 11 8%
United States 3 2%
Canada 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 112 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 38 28%
Student > Master 19 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 14%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Other 37 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 84 62%
Social Sciences 13 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Philosophy 4 3%
Other 17 13%

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 20 October 2016.
All research outputs
#1,014,117
of 6,992,390 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#162
of 743 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,625
of 90,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#5
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,992,390 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 743 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 90,549 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.