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 |
The influence of the team in conducting a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-017-0548-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lesley Uttley, Paul Montgomery |
| Abstract |
There is an increasing body of research documenting flaws in many published systematic reviews' methodological and reporting conduct. When good systematic review practice is questioned, attention is rarely turned to the composition of the team that conducted the systematic review. This commentary highlights a number of relevant articles indicating how the composition of the review team could jeopardise the integrity of the systematic review study and its conclusions. Key biases require closer attention such as sponsorship bias and researcher allegiance, but there may also be less obvious affiliations in teams conducting secondary evidence-syntheses. The importance of transparency and disclosure are now firmly on the agenda for clinical trials and primary research, but the meta-biases that systematic reviews may be at risk from now require further scrutiny. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 140 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 | 33 | 24% |
| Canada | 17 | 12% |
| United States | 8 | 6% |
| Ireland | 6 | 4% |
| Australia | 5 | 4% |
| South Africa | 4 | 3% |
| Lebanon | 3 | 2% |
| Belgium | 2 | 1% |
| Germany | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 10 | 7% |
| Unknown | 50 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 77 | 55% |
| Scientists | 41 | 29% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 15 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 7 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 99 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 7% |
| Librarian | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 23 | 23% |
| Unknown | 29 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 17% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 14% |
| Unknown | 35 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 79. 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 07 February 2023.
All research outputs
#547,405
of 25,718,113 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#62
of 2,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,374
of 328,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#2
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,718,113 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,247 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 328,486 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 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 96% of its contemporaries.