↓ Skip to main content

Time to consider sharing data extracted from trials included in systematic reviews

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, November 2016
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
39 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
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.
Title
Time to consider sharing data extracted from trials included in systematic reviews
Published in
Systematic Reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0361-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luke Wolfenden, Jeremy Grimshaw, Christopher M. Williams, Sze Lin Yoong

Abstract

While the debate regarding shared clinical trial data has shifted from whether such data should be shared to how this is best achieved, the sharing of data collected as part of systematic reviews has received little attention. In this commentary, we discuss the potential benefits of coordinated efforts to share data collected as part of systematic reviews. There are a number of potential benefits of systematic review data sharing. Shared information and data obtained as part of the systematic review process may reduce unnecessary duplication, reduce demand on trialist to service repeated requests from reviewers for data, and improve the quality and efficiency of future reviews. Sharing also facilitates research to improve clinical trial and systematic review methods and supports additional analyses to address secondary research questions. While concerns regarding appropriate use of data, costs, or the academic return for original review authors may impede more open access to information extracted as part of systematic reviews, many of these issues are being addressed, and infrastructure to enable greater access to such information is being developed. Embracing systems to enable more open access to systematic review data has considerable potential to maximise the benefits of research investment in undertaking systematic reviews.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
Australia 1 4%
Unknown 24 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 35%
Student > Master 4 15%
Other 3 12%
Librarian 2 8%
Lecturer 2 8%
Other 6 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 38%
Social Sciences 3 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Computer Science 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 4 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 March 2022.
All research outputs
#1,211,989
of 20,927,597 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#193
of 1,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,208
of 313,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#23
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,927,597 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,819 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 313,984 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.