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 |
Can AMSTAR also be applied to systematic reviews of non-randomized studies?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Research Notes, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1756-0500-7-609 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dawid Pieper, Tim Mathes, Michaela Eikermann |
| Abstract |
There is a lack of an instrument to evaluate systematic reviews of non-randomized studies in epidemiological research. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) is widely used to evaluate the scientific quality of systematic reviews, but it has not been validated for SRs of non-randomized studies. The objective of this paper is to report our experience in applying AMSTAR to systematic reviews of non-randomized studies in terms of applicability, reliability and feasibility. Thus, we applied AMSTAR to a recently published review of 32 systematic reviews of non-randomized studies investigating the hospital volume-outcome relationship in surgery. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 11% |
| Researcher | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 27% |
| Unknown | 4 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 52% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 9 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 April 2015.
All research outputs
#15,305,567
of 22,763,032 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#2,313
of 4,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,026
of 238,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#79
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,763,032 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 238,865 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 142 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.