↓ Skip to main content

RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
2 policy sources
74 tweeters
2 Facebook pages


170 Dimensions

Readers on

290 Mendeley
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews
Published in
BMC Medicine, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-11-20
Pubmed ID

Geoff Wong, Trish Greenhalgh, Gill Westhorp, Jeanette Buckingham, Ray Pawson


Meta-narrative review is one of an emerging menu of new approaches to qualitative and mixed-method systematic review. A meta-narrative review seeks to illuminate a heterogeneous topic area by highlighting the contrasting and complementary ways in which researchers have studied the same or a similar topic. No previous publication standards exist for the reporting of meta-narrative reviews. This publication standard was developed as part of the RAMESES (Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) project. The project's aim is to produce preliminary publication standards for meta-narrative reviews.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 74 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 290 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 7 2%
United States 3 1%
Canada 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 272 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 53 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 16%
Researcher 43 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 20 7%
Other 20 7%
Other 73 25%
Unknown 35 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 27%
Social Sciences 50 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 16 6%
Psychology 14 5%
Other 47 16%
Unknown 61 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. 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 18 December 2019.
All research outputs
of 17,067,437 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
of 2,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 255,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,067,437 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,675 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 255,287 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them