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 |
Integration of existing systematic reviews into new reviews: identification of guidance needs
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-3-60 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Karen A Robinson, Evelyn P Whitlock, Maya E Oneil, Johanna K Anderson, Lisa Hartling, Donna M Dryden, Mary Butler, Sydne J Newberry, Melissa McPheeters, Nancy D Berkman, Jennifer S Lin, Stephanie Chang |
| Abstract |
An exponential increase in the number of systematic reviews published, and constrained resources for new reviews, means that there is an urgent need for guidance on explicitly and transparently integrating existing reviews into new systematic reviews. The objectives of this paper are: 1) to identify areas where existing guidance may be adopted or adapted, and 2) to suggest areas for future guidance development. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 6 | 23% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 12% |
| United States | 3 | 12% |
| Ireland | 1 | 4% |
| South Africa | 1 | 4% |
| Germany | 1 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 10 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 54% |
| Scientists | 5 | 19% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 12% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Austria | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 51 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Librarian | 9 | 16% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 11% |
| Researcher | 6 | 11% |
| Professor | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 15 | 27% |
| Unknown | 9 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 23% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 11% |
| Psychology | 6 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 20% |
| Unknown | 11 | 20% |
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 22 August 2019.
All research outputs
#1,959,167
of 24,356,663 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#321
of 2,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,648
of 232,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#10
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,356,663 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 2,119 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 232,777 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 28 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 67% of its contemporaries.