↓ 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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 6 7%
United Kingdom 4 5%
France 1 1%
Ireland 1 1%
Nigeria 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 70 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 16 19%
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 8%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 9 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 57%
Psychology 7 8%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 13 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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
#2,217,083
of 4,610,104 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#334
of 557 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,356
of 150,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#14
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,610,104 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 557 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 150,021 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.