↓ Skip to main content

The quality of the evidence base for clinical pathway effectiveness: Room for improvement in the design of evaluation trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 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
The quality of the evidence base for clinical pathway effectiveness: Room for improvement in the design of evaluation trials
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-12-80
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Rotter, Leigh Kinsman, Erica James, Andreas Machotta, Ewout W Steyerberg

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to report on the quality of the existing evidence base regarding the effectiveness of clinical pathway (CPW) research in the hospital setting. The analysis is based on a recently published Cochrane review of the effectiveness of CPWs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Indonesia 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 85 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 21%
Student > Master 16 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Other 7 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 4%
Other 17 19%
Unknown 18 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 12%
Computer Science 7 8%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 21 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 July 2012.
All research outputs
#20,160,460
of 22,669,724 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,863
of 2,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,401
of 164,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#25
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,669,724 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,000 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 164,518 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.