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 |
Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions published 2012–2016: protocol for a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-017-0468-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dawid Pieper, Michelle Pollock, Ricardo M. Fernandes, Roland Brian Büchter, Lisa Hartling |
| Abstract |
Overviews of systematic reviews (overviews) attempt to systematically retrieve and summarize the results of multiple systematic reviews (SRs) for a given condition or public health problem. Two prior descriptive analyses of overviews found substantial variation in the methodological approaches used in overviews, and deficiencies in reporting of key methodological steps. Since then, new methods have been developed so it is timely to update the prior descriptive analyses. The objectives are to: (1) investigate the epidemiological, descriptive, and reporting characteristics of a random sample of 100 overviews published from 2012 to 2016 and (2) compare these recently published overviews (2012-2016) to those published prior to 2012 (based on the prior descriptive analyses). Medline, EMBASE, and CDSR will be searched for overviews published 2012-2016, using a validated search filter for overviews. Only overviews written in English will be included. All titles and abstracts will be screened by one review author; those deemed not relevant will be verified by a second person for exclusion. Full-texts will be assessed for inclusion by two reviewers independently. Of those deemed relevant, a random sample of 100 overviews will be selected for inclusion. Data extraction will be either performed by one reviewer with verification by a second reviewer or by one reviewer only depending on the complexity of the item. Discrepancies at any stage will be resolved by consensus or consulting a third person. Data will be extracted on the epidemiological, descriptive, and reporting characteristics of each overview. Data will be analyzed descriptively. When data are available for both time points (up to 2011 vs. 2012-2016), we will compare characteristics by calculating risk ratios or applying the Mann-Whitney test. Overviews are becoming increasingly valuable evidence syntheses, and the number of published overviews is increasing. However, former analyses found limitations in the conduct and reporting of overviews. This update of a recent sample of overviews will inform whether this has changed, while also identifying areas for further improvement. The review will not be registered in PROSPERO as it does not meet the eligibility criterion of dealing with health-related outcomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 50% |
| Germany | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Librarian | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 23% |
| Unknown | 11 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 40% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 11 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 08 January 2018.
All research outputs
#13,195,230
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,392
of 2,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,669
of 309,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#35
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 309,929 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.