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 |
Failure or success of search strategies to identify adverse effects of medical devices: a feasibility study using a systematic review
|
---|---|
Published in |
Systematic Reviews, October 2014
|
DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-3-113 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Su Golder, Kath Wright, Mark Rodgers |
Abstract |
Research has indicated that adverse effects terms are increasingly prevalent in the title, abstract or indexing terms of articles that contain adverse drug effects data in MEDLINE and Embase. However, it is unknown whether adverse effects terms are present in the database records of articles that contain adverse effects data of medical devices, and thus, to what extent the development of an adverse effects search filter for medical devices may be feasible. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 | 31% |
Canada | 4 | 25% |
Chile | 1 | 6% |
Ireland | 1 | 6% |
Unknown | 5 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 8 | 50% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 19% |
Scientists | 3 | 19% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 50 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 7 | 14% |
Librarian | 5 | 10% |
Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
Other | 4 | 8% |
Other | 11 | 22% |
Unknown | 16 | 31% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 33% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 6% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
Other | 7 | 14% |
Unknown | 18 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 05 August 2022.
All research outputs
#2,279,841
of 23,917,076 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#393
of 2,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,224
of 259,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#8
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,917,076 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,078 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 81% 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 259,190 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.