↓ 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 (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 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 5 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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 15%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 21 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 20%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Psychology 5 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 23 26%

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 26 December 2021.
All research outputs
#2,037,683
of 21,415,362 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,529
of 12,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,500
of 276,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#105
of 231 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,415,362 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 12,052 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 276,782 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 54% of its contemporaries.