↓ Skip to main content

Acceptance of a systematic review as a thesis: survey of biomedical doctoral programs in Europe

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
102 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
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
Acceptance of a systematic review as a thesis: survey of biomedical doctoral programs in Europe
Published in
Systematic Reviews, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0653-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Livia Puljak, Damir Sapunar

Abstract

Systematic reviews (SRs) have been proposed as a type of research methodology that should be acceptable for a graduate research thesis. The aim of this study was to analyse whether PhD theses in European biomedical graduate programs can be partly or entirely based on SRs. In 2016, we surveyed individuals in charge of European PhD programs from 105 institutions. The survey asked about acceptance of SRs as the partial or entire basis for a PhD thesis, their attitude towards such a model for PhD theses, and their knowledge about SR methodology. We received responses from 86 individuals running PhD programs in 68 institutions (institutional response rate of 65%). In 47% of the programs, SRs were an acceptable study design for a PhD thesis. However, only 20% of participants expressed a personal opinion that SRs meet the criteria for a PhD thesis. The most common reasons for not accepting SRs as the basis for PhD theses were that SRs are 'not a result of a PhD candidate's independent work, but more of a team effort' and that SRs 'do not produce enough new knowledge for a dissertation'. The majority of participants were not familiar with basic concepts related to SRs; questions about meta-analyses and the type of plots frequently used in SRs were correctly answered by only one third of the participants. Raising awareness about the importance of SRs and their methodology could contribute to higher acceptance of SRs as a type of research that forms the basis of a PhD thesis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 102 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Librarian 7 9%
Researcher 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 18 22%
Unknown 21 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 21%
Social Sciences 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 6%
Computer Science 3 4%
Other 18 22%
Unknown 25 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 66. 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 06 May 2021.
All research outputs
#650,844
of 25,539,438 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#78
of 2,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,594
of 444,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#5
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,539,438 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,239 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 444,808 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.