| Title |
Quality of dementia clinical guidelines and relevance to the care of older people with comorbidity: evidence from the literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s65046 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gianfranco Damiani, Giulia Silvestrini, Lucrezia Trozzi, Donatella Maci, Lanfranco Iodice, Walter Ricciardi |
| Abstract |
The aim of this paper was to explore the applicability of dementia clinical guidelines (CGs) to older patients, to patients with one or several comorbidities, and to both targets in order to evaluate if an association between the applicability and quality of the CGs exists. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 80% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 53 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 15% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Researcher | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 13 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 31% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 7% |
| Psychology | 3 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 18 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 11 May 2016.
All research outputs
#14,553,981
of 25,402,889 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#927
of 1,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,094
of 240,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#22
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,402,889 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,967 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 240,114 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 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 54% of its contemporaries.