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 |
Compliance of systematic reviews in ophthalmology with the PRISMA statement
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-017-0450-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Seon-Young Lee, Harkiran Sagoo, Reem Farwana, Katharine Whitehurst, Alex Fowler, Riaz Agha |
| Abstract |
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are becoming increasingly important methods to summarize published research. Studies of ophthalmology may present additional challenges because of their potentially complex study designs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on topics in ophthalmology to determine compliance with the PRISMA guidelines. We assessed articles published between 2010 and 2015 in the five major relevant journals with the highest impact factors. The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched to identify systematic reviews published between January 2010 and December 2015 in the following 5 major ophthalmology journals: Progress in Retinal and Eye Research, Ophthalmology, Archives of Ophthalmology, American Journal of Ophthalmology, and Survey of Ophthalmology. The screening, identification, and scoring of articles were independently performed by two teams, and the results were submitted to statistical analysis to determine medians, ranges, and 95% CIs. A total of 115 articles were included. The median compliance was 15 out of 27 items (56%), the range was 5-26 (26-96%), and the inter-quartile range was 10 (37%). Compliance was highest in items related to the 'description of rationale' (item 3, 100%) and sequentially lower in 'the general interpretation of results' (item 26, 96%) and 'the inclusion of a structured summary in the abstract' (item 2, 90%). Compliance was poorest in the items 'indication of review protocol and registration' (item 5, 9%), 'specification of risk of biases that may affect the cumulative evidence' (item 15, 24%), and 'description of clear objectives in the introduction' (item 4, 26%). The reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ophthalmology should be significantly improved. While we recommend the use of the PRISMA criteria as a guideline before journal submission, additional research aimed at identifying potential barriers to compliance may be required to improve compliance with PRISMA guidelines. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 67% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Researcher | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 10 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 31% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 10% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 21% |
| Unknown | 10 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 04 July 2023.
All research outputs
#6,354,733
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#953
of 2,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,579
of 441,975 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#24
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,029 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 441,975 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 70% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.