↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Walk-in clinics versus physician offices and emergency rooms for urgent care and chronic disease management

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Walk-in clinics versus physician offices and emergency rooms for urgent care and chronic disease management
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011774.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Connie E Chen, Christopher T Chen, Jia Hu, Ateev Mehrotra

Abstract

Walk-in clinics are growing in popularity around the world as a substitute for traditional medical care delivered in physician offices and emergency rooms, but their clinical efficacy is unclear. To assess the quality of care and patient satisfaction of walk-in clinics compared to that of traditional physician offices and emergency rooms for people who present with basic medical complaints for either acute or chronic issues. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases, and two trials registers on 22 March 2016 together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We applied no restrictions on language, publication type, or publication year. Study design: randomized trials, non-randomized trials, and controlled before-after studies. standalone physical clinics not requiring advance appointments or registration, that provided basic medical care without expectation of follow-up. Comparisons: traditional primary care practices or emergency rooms. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. The literature search identified 6587 citations, of which we considered 65 to be potentially relevant. We reviewed the abstracts of all 65 potentially relevant studies and retrieved the full texts of 12 articles thought to fit our study criteria. However, following independent author assessment of the full texts, we excluded all 12 articles. Controlled trial evidence about the mortality, morbidity, quality of care, and patient satisfaction of walk-in clinics is currently not available.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Researcher 5 6%
Other 4 5%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 17 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 19%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 6%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Psychology 4 5%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 19 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 20 June 2018.
All research outputs
#1,676,287
of 17,363,630 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,145
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,782
of 267,321 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#102
of 231 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,363,630 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 267,321 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 231 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 55% of its contemporaries.