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 |
Recent meta-analyses neglect previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses about the same topic: a systematic examination
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-015-0317-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bartosz Helfer, Aaron Prosser, Myrto T Samara, John R Geddes, Andrea Cipriani, John M Davis, Dimitris Mavridis, Georgia Salanti, Stefan Leucht |
| Abstract |
As the number of systematic reviews is growing rapidly, we systematically investigate whether meta-analyses published in leading medical journals present an outline of available evidence by referring to previous meta-analyses and systematic reviews. We searched PubMed for recent meta-analyses of pharmacological treatments published in high impact factor journals. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses were identified with electronic searches of keywords and by searching reference sections. We analyzed the number of meta-analyses and systematic reviews that were cited, described and discussed in each recent meta-analysis. Moreover, we investigated publication characteristics that potentially influence the referencing practices. We identified 52 recent meta-analyses and 242 previous meta-analyses on the same topics. Of these, 66% of identified previous meta-analyses were cited, 36% described, and only 20% discussed by recent meta-analyses. The probability of citing a previous meta-analysis was positively associated with its publication in a journal with a higher impact factor (odds ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.06 to 2.10) and more recent publication year (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.37). Additionally, the probability of a previous study being described by the recent meta-analysis was inversely associated with the concordance of results (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.17 to 0.88), and the probability of being discussed was increased for previous studies that employed meta-analytic methods (odds ratio, 32.36; 95% confidence interval, 2.00 to 522.85). Meta-analyses on pharmacological treatments do not consistently refer to and discuss findings of previous meta-analyses on the same topic. Such neglect can lead to research waste and be confusing for readers. Journals should make the discussion of related meta-analyses mandatory. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 68 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 | 19 | 28% |
| Spain | 6 | 9% |
| Canada | 5 | 7% |
| United States | 4 | 6% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 3% |
| Italy | 2 | 3% |
| Senegal | 1 | 1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 1% |
| Norway | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 27 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 36 | 53% |
| Scientists | 13 | 19% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 12 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 7 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Norway | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 56 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 10% |
| Professor | 6 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 26% |
| Unknown | 11 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 9% |
| Psychology | 5 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 16 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 28 March 2016.
All research outputs
#1,050,638
of 25,754,670 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#731
of 4,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,786
of 280,070 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#23
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,754,670 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 4,086 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 280,070 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 82 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 71% of its contemporaries.