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 |
Increasing value and reducing waste in data extraction for systematic reviews: tracking data in data extraction forms
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-017-0546-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Farhad Shokraneh, Clive E. Adams |
| Abstract |
Data extraction is one of the most time-consuming tasks in performing a systematic review. Extraction is often onto some sort of form. Sharing completed forms can be used to check quality and accuracy of extraction or for re-cycling data to other researchers for updating. However, validating each piece of extracted data is time-consuming and linking to source problematic.In this methodology paper, we summarize three methods for reporting the location of data in original full-text reports, comparing their advantages and disadvantages. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 84 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 | 14 | 17% |
| Canada | 10 | 12% |
| United States | 4 | 5% |
| Netherlands | 3 | 4% |
| Australia | 3 | 4% |
| Saudi Arabia | 2 | 2% |
| France | 2 | 2% |
| Qatar | 1 | 1% |
| Monaco | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Unknown | 36 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 45 | 54% |
| Scientists | 26 | 31% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 46 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Researcher | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 9% |
| Librarian | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 9 | 20% |
| Unknown | 14 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 24% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 22% |
| Unknown | 14 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. 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 February 2020.
All research outputs
#888,069
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#112
of 2,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,065
of 327,812 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#8
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,242 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 95% 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 327,812 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.