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 |
Better duplicate detection for systematic reviewers: evaluation of Systematic Review Assistant-Deduplication Module
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-4-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John Rathbone, Matt Carter, Tammy Hoffmann, Paul Glasziou |
| Abstract |
A major problem arising from searching across bibliographic databases is the retrieval of duplicate citations. Removing such duplicates is an essential task to ensure systematic reviewers do not waste time screening the same citation multiple times. Although reference management software use algorithms to remove duplicate records, this is only partially successful and necessitates removing the remaining duplicates manually. This time-consuming task leads to wasted resources. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of a newly developed deduplication program against EndNote. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 46 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 | 13 | 28% |
| Australia | 4 | 9% |
| Canada | 4 | 9% |
| France | 2 | 4% |
| United States | 2 | 4% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 2% |
| Qatar | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| South Africa | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 17 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 25 | 54% |
| Scientists | 11 | 24% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 11% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 197 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 2% |
| Australia | 2 | 1% |
| Canada | 2 | 1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 184 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Librarian | 33 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 11% |
| Researcher | 20 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 46 | 23% |
| Unknown | 45 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 43 | 22% |
| Social Sciences | 19 | 10% |
| Psychology | 17 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 15 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 6% |
| Other | 39 | 20% |
| Unknown | 52 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 21 February 2018.
All research outputs
#1,240,147
of 25,998,826 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#170
of 2,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,305
of 367,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#7
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,998,826 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,251 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 92% 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 367,006 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.