↓ Skip to main content

The development of PubMed search strategies for patient preferences for treatment outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
44 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
The development of PubMed search strategies for patient preferences for treatment outcomes
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0192-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ralph van Hoorn, Wietske Kievit, Andrew Booth, Kati Mozygemba, Kristin Bakke Lysdahl, Pietro Refolo, Dario Sacchini, Ansgar Gerhardus, Gert Jan van der Wilt, Marcia Tummers

Abstract

The importance of respecting patients' preferences when making treatment decisions is increasingly recognized. Efficiently retrieving papers from the scientific literature reporting on the presence and nature of such preferences can help to achieve this goal. The objective of this study was to create a search filter for PubMed to help retrieve evidence on patient preferences for treatment outcomes. A total of 27 journals were hand-searched for articles on patient preferences for treatment outcomes published in 2011. Selected articles served as a reference set. To develop optimal search strategies to retrieve this set, all articles in the reference set were randomly split into a development and a validation set. MeSH-terms and keywords retrieved using PubReMiner were tested individually and as combinations in PubMed and evaluated for retrieval performance (e.g. sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp)). Of 8238 articles, 22 were considered to report empirical evidence on patient preferences for specific treatment outcomes. The best search filters reached Se of 100 % [95 % CI 100-100] with Sp of 95 % [94-95 %] and Sp of 97 % [97-98 %] with 75 % Se [74-76 %]. In the validation set these queries reached values of Se of 90 % [89-91 %] with Sp 94 % [93-95 %] and Se of 80 % [79-81 %] with Sp of 97 % [96-96 %], respectively. Narrow and broad search queries were developed which can help in retrieving literature on patient preferences for treatment outcomes. Identifying such evidence may in turn enhance the incorporation of patient preferences in clinical decision making and health technology assessment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 44 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 7%
Australia 1 4%
Portugal 1 4%
United States 1 4%
Unknown 22 81%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 9 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 22%
Researcher 5 19%
Other 3 11%
Unspecified 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 48%
Unspecified 3 11%
Computer Science 2 7%
Arts and Humanities 2 7%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Other 5 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 15 November 2016.
All research outputs
#585,839
of 13,160,352 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#80
of 1,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,657
of 263,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,160,352 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,207 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 263,250 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 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