↓ Skip to main content

Primum Non Nocere: is shared decision-making the answer?

Overview of attention for article published in Perioperative Medicine, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#16 of 222)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

34 tweeters


10 Dimensions

Readers on

35 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.
Primum Non Nocere: is shared decision-making the answer?
Published in
Perioperative Medicine, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13741-016-0042-3
Pubmed ID

Ramai Santhirapala, Ramani Moonesinghe


Surgical ambition is rising, with the Royal College of Surgeons reporting an increase in the number of procedures by a million over the past decade (Royal College of Surgeons. Surgery and the NHS in Numbers. Available from https://www.rcseng.ac.uk). Underpinning, this is a rapidly growing population, especially those in the over 85 age group, coupled with rising perioperative expertise; options for surgery are now present where conditions were once managed conservatively. Matching the right patient to the right procedure has never been so pertinent (Bader, Am Soc Anesthesiol 78(6), 2014). At the heart of these increasingly complex decisions, which may prove fatal or result in serious morbidity, lies the aspiration of shared decision-making (SDM) (Glance et al., N Engl J Med 370:1379-81, 2014). Shared decision-making is a patient-centred approach taking into account the beliefs, preferences and views of the patient as an expert in what is right for them, supported by clinicians who are the experts in diagnostics and valid therapeutic options (Coulter and Collins, Making shared decision-making a reality: no decision about me, without me, 2011). It has been described as the pinnacle of patient-centred care (Barry et al., N Engl J Med 366:780-1, 2012). In this commentary, we explore further the concept of shared decision-making, supported by a recent article which highlights critical deficits in current perioperative practice (Ankuda et al., Patient Educ Couns 94(3):328-33, 2014). This article was chosen for the purposes of this commentary as it is a large study across several surgical specialties investigating preoperative shared decision-making, and to our knowledge, the only of this kind.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 23%
Student > Master 6 17%
Student > Postgraduate 5 14%
Other 4 11%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 3 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 14%
Social Sciences 4 11%
Psychology 3 9%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 5 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 09 May 2019.
All research outputs
of 21,349,333 outputs
Outputs from Perioperative Medicine
of 222 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 233,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perioperative Medicine
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,349,333 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 222 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 233,661 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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