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 |
Methodological issues and recommendations for systematic reviews of prognostic studies: an example from cardiovascular disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-3-140 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Janine Dretzke, Joie Ensor, Sue Bayliss, James Hodgkinson, Marie Lordkipanidzé, Richard D Riley, David Fitzmaurice, David Moore |
| Abstract |
Prognostic factors are associated with the risk of future health outcomes in individuals with a particular health condition. The prognostic ability of such factors is increasingly being assessed in both primary research and systematic reviews. Systematic review methodology in this area is continuing to evolve, reflected in variable approaches to key methodological aspects. The aim of this article was to (i) explore and compare the methodology of systematic reviews of prognostic factors undertaken for the same clinical question, (ii) to discuss implications for review findings, and (iii) to present recommendations on what might be considered to be 'good practice' approaches. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 | 3 | 21% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 21% |
| Chile | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 57% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 21% |
| Scientists | 2 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 79 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 16% |
| Researcher | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 23% |
| Unknown | 11 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 49% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 7% |
| Psychology | 5 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 15 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 18 December 2014.
All research outputs
#4,443,135
of 22,772,779 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#897
of 1,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,659
of 360,895 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#23
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,772,779 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,992 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 360,895 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 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 59% of its contemporaries.