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 |
Information sources for obesity prevention policy research: a review of systematic reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-017-0543-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rosie Hanneke, Sabrina K. Young |
| Abstract |
Systematic identification of evidence in health policy can be time-consuming and challenging. This study examines three questions pertaining to systematic reviews on obesity prevention policy, in order to identify the most efficient search methods: (1) What percentage of the primary studies selected for inclusion in the reviews originated in scholarly as opposed to gray literature? (2) How much of the primary scholarly literature in this topic area is indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE? (3) Which databases index the greatest number of primary studies not indexed in PubMed, and are these databases searched consistently across systematic reviews? We identified systematic reviews on obesity prevention policy and explored their search methods and citations. We determined the percentage of scholarly vs. gray literature cited, the most frequently cited journals, and whether each primary study was indexed in PubMed. We searched 21 databases for all primary study articles not indexed in PubMed to determine which database(s) indexed the highest number of these relevant articles. In total, 21 systematic reviews were identified. Ten of the 21 systematic reviews reported searching gray literature, and 12 reviews ultimately included gray literature in their analyses. Scholarly articles accounted for 577 of the 649 total primary study papers. Of these, 495 (76%) were indexed in PubMed. Google Scholar retrieved the highest number of the remaining 82 non-PubMed scholarly articles, followed by Scopus and EconLit. The Journal of the American Dietetic Association was the most-cited journal. Researchers can maximize search efficiency by searching a small yet targeted selection of both scholarly and gray literature resources. A highly sensitive search of PubMed and those databases that index the greatest number of relevant articles not indexed in PubMed, namely multidisciplinary and economics databases, could save considerable time and effort. When combined with a gray literature search and additional search methods, including cited reference searching and consulting with experts, this approach could help maintain broad retrieval of relevant studies while improving search efficiency. Findings also have implications for designing specialized databases for public health research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 | 5 | 26% |
| Argentina | 3 | 16% |
| Chile | 1 | 5% |
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Colombia | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 53% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 26% |
| Scientists | 3 | 16% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Librarian | 10 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 14% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 32% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 22% |
| Unknown | 4 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 16 October 2017.
All research outputs
#2,851,003
of 24,169,085 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#510
of 2,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,276
of 321,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#19
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,169,085 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,101 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 321,317 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.