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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Current state of ethics literature synthesis: a systematic review of reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-016-0688-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marcel Mertz, Hannes Kahrass, Daniel Strech |
| Abstract |
Modern standards for evidence-based decision making in clinical care and public health still rely solely on eminence-based input when it comes to normative ethical considerations. Manuals for clinical guideline development or health technology assessment (HTA) do not explain how to search, analyze, and synthesize relevant normative information in a systematic and transparent manner. In the scientific literature, however, systematic or semi-systematic reviews of ethics literature already exist, and scholarly debate on their opportunities and limitations has recently bloomed. A systematic review was performed of all existing systematic or semi-systematic reviews for normative ethics literature on medical topics. The study further assessed how these reviews report on their methods for search, selection, analysis, and synthesis of ethics literature. We identified 84 reviews published between 1997 and 2015 in 65 different journals and demonstrated an increasing publication rate for this type of review. While most reviews reported on different aspects of search and selection methods, reporting was much less explicit for aspects of analysis and synthesis methods: 31 % did not fulfill any criteria related to the reporting of analysis methods; for example, only 25 % of the reviews reported the ethical approach needed to analyze and synthesize normative information. While reviews of ethics literature are increasingly published, their reporting quality for analysis and synthesis of normative information should be improved. Guiding questions are: What was the applied ethical approach and technical procedure for identifying and extracting the relevant normative information units? What method and procedure was employed for synthesizing normative information? Experts and stakeholders from bioethics, HTA, guideline development, health care professionals, and patient organizations should work together to further develop this area of evidence-based health care. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 3 | 18% |
| Germany | 3 | 18% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 18% |
| United States | 2 | 12% |
| Poland | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 5 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 9 | 53% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 18% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 122 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 16% |
| Researcher | 17 | 14% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 17 | 14% |
| Unknown | 36 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 5% |
| Engineering | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 26 | 21% |
| Unknown | 41 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 28 April 2023.
All research outputs
#3,624,345
of 24,679,965 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,059
of 3,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,124
of 327,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#38
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,679,965 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,816 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.9. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 327,642 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.