↓ Skip to main content

Celebrating methodological challenges and changes: reflecting on the emergence and importance of the role of qualitative evidence in Cochrane reviews

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 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
Celebrating methodological challenges and changes: reflecting on the emergence and importance of the role of qualitative evidence in Cochrane reviews
Published in
Systematic Reviews, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-2-84
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karin Hannes, Andrew Booth, Janet Harris, Jane Noyes

Abstract

Cochrane systematic reviews have proven to be beneficial for decision making processes, both on a practitioner and a policy level, and there are current initiatives to extend the types of evidence used by them, including qualitative research. In this article we outline the major achievements of the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group. Although the Group has encountered numerous challenges in dealing with the evolution of qualitative evidence synthesis, both outside and within the Cochrane Collaboration, it has successfully responded to the challenges posed in terms of incorporating qualitative evidence in systematic reviews. The Methods Group will continue to advocate for more flexible and inclusive approaches to evidence synthesis in order to meet the exciting challenges and opportunities presented by mixed methods systematic reviews and reviews of complex interventions.

Twitter Demographics

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters 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 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 3%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 104 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 14%
Student > Master 15 14%
Other 7 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 28 26%
Unknown 12 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 18%
Social Sciences 19 18%
Environmental Science 6 6%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 12 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 27 September 2014.
All research outputs
#6,486,536
of 24,066,486 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,194
of 2,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,856
of 216,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#17
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,066,486 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,094 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 216,684 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.