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 |
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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 12 | 32% |
| Canada | 3 | 8% |
| United States | 2 | 5% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Portugal | 1 | 3% |
| India | 1 | 3% |
| Sweden | 1 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 15 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 25 | 66% |
| Scientists | 10 | 26% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 5% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 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 | 25 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 37% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 15% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Librarian | 2 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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
#1,640,981
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#253
of 2,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,792
of 318,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#11
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,242 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 318,104 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.