↓ Skip to main content

Reference management software for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: an exploration of usage and usability

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
21 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
280 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
Reference management software for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: an exploration of usage and usability
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-13-141
Pubmed ID
Authors

Diane L Lorenzetti, William A Ghali

Abstract

Reference management software programs enable researchers to more easily organize and manage large volumes of references typically identified during the production of systematic reviews. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which authors are using reference management software to produce systematic reviews; identify which programs are used most frequently and rate their ease of use; and assess the degree to which software usage is documented in published studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 280 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 2%
Malaysia 2 <1%
Turkey 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Other 11 4%
Unknown 249 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 76 27%
Student > Master 49 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 12%
Researcher 19 7%
Student > Bachelor 14 5%
Other 66 24%
Unknown 22 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 57 20%
Computer Science 48 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 43 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 9%
Arts and Humanities 18 6%
Other 57 20%
Unknown 33 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,017,278
of 15,992,402 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#150
of 1,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,435
of 188,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#9
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,992,402 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,506 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. 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 188,711 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 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 91% of its contemporaries.