↓ Skip to main content

Study flow diagrams in Cochrane systematic review updates: an adapted PRISMA flow diagram

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
49 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
231 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
406 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Study flow diagrams in Cochrane systematic review updates: an adapted PRISMA flow diagram
Published in
Systematic Reviews, May 2014
DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-3-54
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth Stovold, Deirdre Beecher, Ruth Foxlee, Anna Noel-Storr

Abstract

Cochrane systematic reviews are conducted and reported according to rigorous standards. A study flow diagram must be included in a new review, and there is clear guidance from the PRISMA statement on how to do this. However, for a review update, there is currently no guidance on how study flow diagrams should be presented. To address this, a working group was formed to find a solution and produce guidance on how to use these diagrams in review updates.A number of different options were devised for how these flow diagrams could be used in review updates, and also in cases where multiple searches for a review or review update have been conducted. These options were circulated to the Cochrane information specialist community for consultation and feedback. Following the consultation period, the working group refined the guidance and made the recommendation that for review updates an adapted PRISMA flow diagram should be used, which includes an additional box with the number of previously included studies feeding into the total. Where multiple searches have been conducted, the results should be added together and treated as one set of results.There is no existing guidance for using study flow diagrams in review updates. Our adapted diagram is a simple and pragmatic solution for showing the flow of studies in review updates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 49 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 406 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 <1%
United States 3 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Bangladesh 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Unknown 395 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 53 13%
Student > Master 51 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 8%
Researcher 29 7%
Other 24 6%
Other 100 25%
Unknown 118 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 63 16%
Social Sciences 23 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 18 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 3%
Other 82 20%
Unknown 130 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. 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 01 August 2022.
All research outputs
#847,629
of 25,543,275 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#105
of 2,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,888
of 240,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#3
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,543,275 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 2,239 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 240,593 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 29 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 93% of its contemporaries.