↓ Skip to main content

Towards a methodology for cluster searching to provide conceptual and contextual “richness” for systematic reviews of complex interventions: case study (CLUSTER)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
166 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
208 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Towards a methodology for cluster searching to provide conceptual and contextual “richness” for systematic reviews of complex interventions: case study (CLUSTER)
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-13-118
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew Booth, Janet Harris, Elizabeth Croot, Jane Springett, Fiona Campbell, Emma Wilkins

Abstract

Systematic review methodologies can be harnessed to help researchers to understand and explain how complex interventions may work. Typically, when reviewing complex interventions, a review team will seek to understand the theories that underpin an intervention and the specific context for that intervention. A single published report from a research project does not typically contain this required level of detail. A review team may find it more useful to examine a "study cluster"; a group of related papers that explore and explain various features of a single project and thus supply necessary detail relating to theory and/or context.We sought to conduct a preliminary investigation, from a single case study review, of techniques required to identify a cluster of related research reports, to document the yield from such methods, and to outline a systematic methodology for cluster searching.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 208 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 6 3%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 200 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 46 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 16%
Student > Master 25 12%
Librarian 9 4%
Other 8 4%
Other 44 21%
Unknown 42 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 25%
Social Sciences 38 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 8%
Psychology 15 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 4%
Other 27 13%
Unknown 52 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 23 July 2020.
All research outputs
#2,584,493
of 25,032,929 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#388
of 2,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,650
of 211,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#5
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,032,929 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,232 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 well, scoring higher than 82% 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 211,792 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.