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 |
How can clinicians choose between conflicting and discordant systematic reviews? A replication study of the Jadad algorithm
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, October 2022
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-022-01750-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
C Lunny, Sai Surabi Thirugnanasampanthar, S Kanji, N Ferri, D Pieper, S Whitelaw, S Tasnim, H Nelson, EK Reid, Jia He (Janet) Zhang, Banveer Kalkat, Yuan Chi, Reema Abdoulrezzak, Di Wen Zheng, Lindy R.S. Pangka, Dian (Xin Ran) Wang, Parisa Safavi, Anmol Sooch, Kevin T. Kang, Andrea C, Tricco |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 | 2 | 22% |
| United States | 1 | 11% |
| Germany | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 56% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 56% |
| Scientists | 3 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 11 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 9% |
| Researcher | 1 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 36% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 01 December 2022.
All research outputs
#6,252,363
of 24,916,485 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#874
of 2,222 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,034
of 435,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#17
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,916,485 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,222 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 435,242 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 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 71% of its contemporaries.