↓ Skip to main content

A simplified search strategy for identifying randomised controlled trials for systematic reviews of health care interventions: a comparison with more exhaustive strategies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2005
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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.
Title
A simplified search strategy for identifying randomised controlled trials for systematic reviews of health care interventions: a comparison with more exhaustive strategies
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2005
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-5-23
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pamela Royle, Norman Waugh

Abstract

It is generally believed that exhaustive searches of bibliographic databases are needed for systematic reviews of health care interventions. The CENTRAL database of controlled trials (RCTs) has been built up by exhaustive searching. The CONSORT statement aims to encourage better reporting, and hence indexing, of RCTs. Our aim was to assess whether developments in the CENTRAL database, and the CONSORT statement, mean that a simplified RCT search strategy for identifying RCTs now suffices for systematic reviews of health care interventions.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 5 5%
United Kingdom 4 4%
France 1 1%
Ireland 1 1%
Nigeria 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 86 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 17 17%
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Student > Master 11 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 8%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 17 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 48%
Psychology 7 7%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 23 23%
Attention Score in Context

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 11 December 2014.
All research outputs
#15,312,760
of 22,774,233 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,505
of 2,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,627
of 57,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,774,233 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 2,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 57,221 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.