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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
How can we improve the interpretation of systematic reviews?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, March 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-9-31 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrea C Tricco, Sharon E Straus, David Moher |
| Abstract |
A study conducted by Lai and colleagues, published this week in BMC Medicine, suggests that more guidance might be required for interpreting systematic review (SR) results. In the study by Lai and colleagues, positive (or favorable) results were influential in changing participants' prior beliefs about the interventions presented in the systematic review. Other studies have examined the relationship between favorable systematic review results and the publication of systematic reviews. An international registry may decrease the number of unpublished systematic reviews and will hopefully decrease redundancy, increase transparency, and increase collaboration within the SR community. In addition, using guidance from the Preferred Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA: http://www.prisma-statement.org/) Statement and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE: http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/) approach can also be used to improve the interpretation of systematic reviews. In this commentary, we highlight important methodological issues related to the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and also present our own guidance on interpreting systematic reviews. Please see Research article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/9/30/. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 4 | 5% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 1% |
| Ireland | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Mexico | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 69 | 87% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 22% |
| Researcher | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 10% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Professor | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 23 | 29% |
| Unknown | 9 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 18% |
| Unknown | 14 | 18% |
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 07 February 2018.
All research outputs
#3,275,589
of 22,914,829 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,862
of 3,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,226
of 109,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#14
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,914,829 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 3,445 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.5. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 109,103 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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 55% of its contemporaries.