↓ Skip to main content

Systematic reviews and cancer research: a suggested stepwise approach

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Systematic reviews and cancer research: a suggested stepwise approach
Published in
BMC Cancer, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12885-018-4163-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

George A. Kelley, Kristi S. Kelley

Abstract

Systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, play an important role today in synthesizing cancer research and are frequently used to guide decision-making. However, there is now an increase in the number of systematic reviews on the same topic, thereby necessitating a systematic review of previous systematic reviews. With a focus on cancer, the purpose of this article is to provide a practical, stepwise approach for systematically reviewing the literature and publishing the results. This starts with the registration of a protocol for a systematic review of previous systematic reviews and ends with the publication of an original or updated systematic review, with or without meta-analysis, in a peer-reviewed journal. Future directions as well as potential limitations of the approach are also discussed. It is hoped that the stepwise approach presented in this article will be helpful to both producers and consumers of cancer-related systematic reviews and will contribute to the ultimate goal of preventing and treating cancer.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 22%
Librarian 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 11%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Engineering 2 5%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 10 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 25 June 2018.
All research outputs
#5,243,976
of 25,205,864 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#1,354
of 8,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,409
of 337,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#47
of 219 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,205,864 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,899 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 337,559 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 219 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.