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 |
Is the information of systematic reviews published in nursing journals up-to-date? a cross-sectional study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-017-0432-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wilson W. S. Tam, Kenneth K. H. Lo, Parames Khalechelvam, Joey Seah, Shawn Y. S. Goh |
| Abstract |
An up-to-date systematic review is important for researchers to decide whether to embark on new research or continue supporting ongoing studies. The aim of this study is to examine the time taken between the last search, submission, acceptance and publication dates of systematic reviews published in nursing journals. Nursing journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports were first identified. Thereafter, systematic reviews published in these journals in 2014 were extracted from three databases. The quality of the systematic reviews were evaluated by the AMSTAR. The last search, submission, acceptance, online publication, full publication dates and other characteristics of the systematic reviews were recorded. The time taken between the five dates was then computed. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the time differences; non-parametric statistics were used to examine the association between the time taken from the last search and full publication alongside other potential factors, including the funding support, submission during holiday periods, number of records retrieved from database, inclusion of meta-analysis, and quality of the review. A total of 107 nursing journals were included in this study, from which 1070 articles were identified through the database search. After screening for eligibility, 202 systematic reviews were included in the analysis. The quality of these reviews was low with the median score of 3 out of 11. A total of 172 (85.1%), 72 (35.6%), 153 (75.7%) and 149 (73.8%) systematic reviews provided their last search, submission, acceptance and online published dates respectively. The median numbers of days taken from the last search to acceptance and to full publication were, respectively, 393 (IQR: 212-609) and 669 (427-915) whereas that from submission to full publication was 365 (243-486). Moreover, the median number of days from the last search to submission and from submission to online publication were 167.5 (53.5-427) and 153 (92-212), respectively. No significant association were revealed between the time lag and those potential factors. The median time from the last search to acceptance for systematic reviews published in nursing journals was 393 days. Readers for systematic reviews are advised to check the time taken from the last search date of the reviews in order to ensure that up-to-date evidence is consulted for effective clinical decision-making. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 | 8 | 44% |
| Australia | 2 | 11% |
| Ireland | 1 | 6% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 61% |
| Scientists | 3 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 47 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Librarian | 3 | 6% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 25 | 53% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 27 | 57% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 February 2018.
All research outputs
#2,986,456
of 24,044,816 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#462
of 2,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,935
of 445,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#7
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,044,816 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,134 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 445,415 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.