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 |
The impact of Cochrane Systematic Reviews: a mixed method evaluation of outputs from Cochrane Review Groups supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-3-125 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Frances Bunn, Daksha Trivedi, Phil Alderson, Laura Hamilton, Alice Martin, Steve Iliffe |
| Abstract |
There has been a growing emphasis on evidence-informed decision-making in health care. Systematic reviews, such as those produced by the Cochrane Collaboration, have been a key component of this movement. The UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Systematic Review Programme currently supports 20 Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs). The aim of this study was to identify the impacts of Cochrane reviews published by NIHR-funded CRGs during the years 2007-2011. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 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 | 10 | 27% |
| Netherlands | 3 | 8% |
| Australia | 2 | 5% |
| Canada | 2 | 5% |
| Ireland | 2 | 5% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Colombia | 1 | 3% |
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Portugal | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 12 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 19 | 51% |
| Scientists | 9 | 24% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 14% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 71 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 11% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 18% |
| Unknown | 19 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 19 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 13 February 2015.
All research outputs
#1,698,895
of 25,775,807 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#258
of 2,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,074
of 274,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#7
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,775,807 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,250 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 88% 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 274,596 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.