↓ Skip to main content

Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
6 policy sources
twitter
40 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
848 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1414 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-11-15
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valerie Smith, Declan Devane, Cecily M Begley, Mike Clarke

Abstract

Hundreds of studies of maternity care interventions have been published, too many for most people involved in providing maternity care to identify and consider when making decisions. It became apparent that systematic reviews of individual studies were required to appraise, summarise and bring together existing studies in a single place. However, decision makers are increasingly faced by a plethora of such reviews and these are likely to be of variable quality and scope, with more than one review of important topics. Systematic reviews (or overviews) of reviews are a logical and appropriate next step, allowing the findings of separate reviews to be compared and contrasted, providing clinical decision makers with the evidence they need.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,414 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 12 <1%
United States 4 <1%
Brazil 4 <1%
South Africa 4 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
Indonesia 3 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Argentina 2 <1%
Other 11 <1%
Unknown 1366 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 277 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 183 13%
Researcher 172 12%
Student > Bachelor 99 7%
Student > Postgraduate 78 6%
Other 332 23%
Unknown 273 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 345 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 175 12%
Social Sciences 117 8%
Psychology 70 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 62 4%
Other 299 21%
Unknown 346 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. 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 14 December 2022.
All research outputs
#779,237
of 25,292,378 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#65
of 2,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,533
of 195,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#2
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,292,378 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,257 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 195,386 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.