↓ Skip to main content

A protocol for a systematic review on the impact of unpublished studies and studies published in the gray literature in meta-analyses

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
A protocol for a systematic review on the impact of unpublished studies and studies published in the gray literature in meta-analyses
Published in
Systematic Reviews, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-2-24
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christine Schmucker, Annette Bluemle, Matthias Briel, Susan Portalupi, Britta Lang, Edith Motschall, Guido Schwarzer, Dirk Bassler, Katharina F Mueller, Erik von Elm, Joerg J Meerpohl

Abstract

Meta-analyses are particularly vulnerable to the effects of publication bias. Despite methodologists' best efforts to locate all evidence for a given topic the most comprehensive searches are likely to miss unpublished studies and studies that are published in the gray literature only. If the results of the missing studies differ systematically from the published ones, a meta-analysis will be biased with an inaccurate assessment of the intervention's effects.As part of the OPEN project (http://www.open-project.eu) we will conduct a systematic review with the following objectives:▪ To assess the impact of studies that are not published or published in the gray literature on pooled effect estimates in meta-analyses (quantitative measure).▪ To assess whether the inclusion of unpublished studies or studies published in the gray literature leads to different conclusions in meta-analyses (qualitative measure).

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 3%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Belgium 1 1%
Chile 1 1%
Unknown 88 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 18%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 28 29%
Unknown 12 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 46%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 13 14%
Attention Score in Context

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 17 May 2013.
All research outputs
#5,822,387
of 22,711,242 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,123
of 1,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,063
of 192,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#14
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,242 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 1,987 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 192,698 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.