↓ Skip to main content

A critical appraisal of the quality of adult musculoskeletal ultrasound guidelines using the AGREE II tool: an EuroAIM initiative

Overview of attention for article published in Insights into Imaging, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
A critical appraisal of the quality of adult musculoskeletal ultrasound guidelines using the AGREE II tool: an EuroAIM initiative
Published in
Insights into Imaging, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s13244-017-0563-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carmelo Messina, Bianca Bignotti, Alberto Tagliafico, Davide Orlandi, Angelo Corazza, Francesco Sardanelli, Luca Maria Sconfienza

Abstract

Our aim was to evaluate the quality of published guidelines on musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSK-US) for adults. Between June and July 2016, we conducted an online search for MSK-US guidelines, which were evaluated by four independent readers blinded to each other using the AGREE II tool. A fifth independent reviewer calculated scores per each domain and agreement between reviewers' scores using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Five guidelines were included in this appraisal. They were published between 2001 and 2014. Our appraisal showed intermediate results, with four out of five guidelines scoring "average" as overall quality. Domain 1 (scope and purpose) achieved the highest result (total score = 71.1% ± 18.7%). Domain 6 (editorial independence) had the lowest score (total score = 26.3% ± 19.3%). Interobserver agreement was very good for all the evaluated guidelines (ICC ranged between 0.932 and 0.956). Overall, quality of MSK-US guidelines ranges from low to average when evaluated using the AGREE II tool. The editorial independence domain was the most critical, thus deserving more attention when developing future guidelines. • Four of five guidelines on MSK-US had an average quality level. • Scope/purpose had the highest score (71.1% ± 18.7%). • Editorial independence had the lowest score (26.3% ± 19.3%). • Interobserver agreement was very good (ranges: 0.932-0.956).

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Other 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 12 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Unknown 18 55%
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 08 October 2017.
All research outputs
#19,702,729
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#847
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#247,544
of 319,880 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#12
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 319,880 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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.