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 |
Are systematic reviews up-to-date at the time of publication?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-2-36 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elaine M Beller, Joyce Kee-Hsin Chen, Una Li-Hsiang Wang, Paul P Glasziou |
| Abstract |
Systematic reviews provide a synthesis of evidence for practitioners, for clinical practice guideline developers, and for those designing and justifying primary research. Having an up-to-date and comprehensive review is therefore important. Our main objective was to determine the recency of systematic reviews at the time of their publication, as measured by the time from last search date to publication. We also wanted to study the time from search date to acceptance, and from acceptance to publication, and measure the proportion of systematic reviews with recorded information on search dates and information sources in the abstract and full text of the review. A descriptive analysis of published systematic reviews indexed in Medline in 2009, 2010 and 2011 by three reviewers, independently extracting data. Of the 300 systematic reviews included, 271 (90%) provided the date of search in the full-text article, but only 141 (47%) stated this in the abstract. The median (standard error; minimum to maximum) survival time from last search to acceptance was 5.1 (0.58; 0 to 43.8) months (95% confidence interval = 3.9 to 6.2) and from last search to first publication time was 8.0 (0.35; 0 to 46.7) months (95% confidence interval = 7.3 to 8.7), respectively. Of the 300 reviews, 295 (98%) stated which databases had been searched, but only 181 (60%) stated the databases in the abstract. Most researchers searched three (35%) or four (21%) databases. The top-three most used databases were MEDLINE (79%), Cochrane library (76%), and EMBASE (64%). Being able to identify comprehensive, up-to-date reviews is important to clinicians, guideline groups, and those designing clinical trials. This study demonstrates that some reviews have a considerable delay between search and publication, but only 47% of systematic review abstracts stated the last search date and 60% stated the databases that had been searched. Improvements in the quality of abstracts of systematic reviews and ways to shorten the review and revision processes to make review publication more rapid are needed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 | 10 | 29% |
| Canada | 3 | 9% |
| United States | 2 | 6% |
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| South Africa | 1 | 3% |
| France | 1 | 3% |
| Greece | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 15 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 21 | 60% |
| Scientists | 7 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Peru | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 97 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 17% |
| Researcher | 10 | 10% |
| Librarian | 6 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 27 | 26% |
| Unknown | 18 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 24% |
| Computer Science | 13 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 19 | 18% |
| Unknown | 25 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 29 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,437,924
of 25,715,849 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#207
of 2,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,545
of 208,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#3
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,715,849 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 2,247 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 208,496 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.