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 |
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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 7 | 39% |
| United States | 2 | 11% |
| Germany | 1 | 6% |
| Mexico | 1 | 6% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Chile | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 5 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 56% |
| Scientists | 6 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 359 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 2% |
| Turkey | 2 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| France | 2 | <1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 9 | 3% |
| Unknown | 331 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Librarian | 81 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 52 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 35 | 10% |
| Researcher | 26 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 5% |
| Other | 75 | 21% |
| Unknown | 72 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 62 | 17% |
| Computer Science | 50 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 42 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 30 | 8% |
| Arts and Humanities | 19 | 5% |
| Other | 68 | 19% |
| Unknown | 88 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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
#2,107,324
of 25,998,826 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#285
of 2,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,826
of 227,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#5
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,998,826 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,327 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 227,777 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.