| Title |
Protocols for the obvious: Where does it start, and stop?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Intensive Care, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13613-017-0264-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Armand R. J. Girbes, Paul E. Marik |
| Abstract |
Protocols can be helpful in specific situations and may have show benefits in clinical trials. So-called evidence based protocols and checklists frequently remind clinicians to do the obvious, but may also contain as part of a bundle, elements that are not based on the best current evidence. However, so called quality improvement programs frequently call for implementation of the total bundle. We think this is basically wrong and warn against that practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 2 | 29% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 19% |
| Researcher | 3 | 19% |
| Professor | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 19% |
| Unknown | 2 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 69% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 13% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 2 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 17 April 2017.
All research outputs
#5,570,260
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#524
of 1,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,524
of 308,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#13
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,050 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 308,964 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.