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 |
A survey of prevalence of narrative and systematic reviews in five major medical journals
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-017-0453-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Clovis Mariano Faggion, Nikolaos P. Bakas, Jason Wasiak |
| Abstract |
Systematic reviews may provide less biased evidence than narrative reviews because they observe a strict methodology, similarly to primary studies. Hence, for clinical research questions, systematic reviews should be the study design of choice. It would be important to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of narrative and systematic reviews published in prominent medical journals. Researchers and clinicians give great value to articles published in such scientific journals. This study sought to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of narrative and systematic reviews in the five highest-ranked general medical journals and investigate the associations among type of review, number of citations, and impact factor (IF). We surveyed the five highest-ranked medical journals (The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, The Journal of the American Medical Association, The BMJ, and Annals of Internal Medicine) for narrative and systematic reviews published between June 2015 and June 2016. We independently selected and extracted the data from the reviews by strictly following the pre-determined eligibility criteria (Systematic and narrative reviews that focused on the management of diseases). We conducted regression analyses to investigate the associations among review type, number of citations, and IF. We also descriptively reported narrative reviews containing some methodology that might be reproducible. Two hundred seventy-five reviews were included: 75 (27%) systematic; 126 (46%) narrative with some methodology reported, and 74 (27%) narrative reviews. In comparison to systematic reviews, narrative reviews were more frequently published in journals with higher IF (risk ratio [RR] = 1.114 (95% CI 1.080 to 1.149). Systematic reviews received more citations than narrative reviews (group formed by narrative and narrative with some methodology reported (RR = 0.985 95% CI 0.978 to 0.991). Non-systematic evidence is the most prevalent type of evidence in reviews published in the five highest-ranked general medical journals. Narrative reviews were more frequently published in journals with higher IF. We recommend that journals limit their space for narrative information, and to address clinical research questions, these journals consider publishing systematic evidence exclusively. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 227 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 | 25 | 11% |
| Canada | 24 | 11% |
| United States | 23 | 10% |
| Spain | 13 | 6% |
| Australia | 12 | 5% |
| Italy | 8 | 4% |
| Germany | 6 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 4 | 2% |
| Colombia | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 38 | 17% |
| Unknown | 71 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 129 | 57% |
| Scientists | 54 | 24% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 33 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 10 | 4% |
| Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 68 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 7% |
| Professor | 5 | 7% |
| Librarian | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 17 | 25% |
| Unknown | 19 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 6% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 15% |
| Unknown | 22 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 124. 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 20 November 2021.
All research outputs
#337,240
of 25,498,750 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#21
of 2,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,637
of 449,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#3
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,498,750 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,289 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 449,628 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 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 96% of its contemporaries.