↓ Skip to main content

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 (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
154 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 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 14 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 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 11 7%
United States 3 2%
Canada 2 1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 143 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 42 25%
Student > Master 26 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 11%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Student > Postgraduate 11 7%
Other 53 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 87 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 10%
Unspecified 17 10%
Social Sciences 15 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Other 22 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 14 January 2019.
All research outputs
#1,708,773
of 12,504,789 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#261
of 1,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,176
of 118,437 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,504,789 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,109 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 118,437 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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