↓ Skip to main content

Web searching for systematic reviews: a case study of reporting standards in the UK Health Technology Assessment programme

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Web searching for systematic reviews: a case study of reporting standards in the UK Health Technology Assessment programme
Published in
BMC Research Notes, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-1079-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon Briscoe

Abstract

Identifying literature for a systematic review requires searching a variety of sources. The main sources are typically bibliographic databases. Web searching using search engines and websites may be used to identify grey literature. Searches should be reported in order to ensure transparency and reproducibility. This study assesses the reporting of web searching for systematic reviews carried out by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme (UK). The study also makes recommendations about reporting web searching for systematic reviews in order to achieve a reasonable level of transparency and reproducibility. Systematic reviews were identified by searching the HTA database via the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) website. Systematic reviews were included in the study if they made reference to searching the web using either search engines or websites. A data-extraction checklist was designed to record how web searching was reported. The checklist recorded whether a systematic review reported: the names of search engines or websites; the dates they were searched; the search terms; the results of the searches; and, in the case of websites, whether a URL was reported. 554 HTA reports published between January 2004 and December 2013 were identified. 300 of these reports are systematic reviews, of which 108 report web searching using either a search engine or a website. Overall, the systematic reviews assessed in the study exhibit a low standard of web search reporting. In the majority of cases, the only details reported are the names of websites (n = 54) or search engines (n = 33). A small minority (n = 6) exhibit the highest standard of web search reporting. Most web search reporting in systematic reviews carried out on the UK HTA programme is not detailed enough to ensure transparency and reproducibility. Transparency of reporting could be improved by adhering to a reporting standard such as the standard detailed in the CRD systematic reviews methods guidance. Reproducibility is harder to achieve due to the frequency of changes to websites and search engines.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Netherlands 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 73 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 15 19%
Researcher 13 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Student > Master 9 12%
Other 6 8%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 15 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Social Sciences 7 9%
Computer Science 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 22 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 06 January 2020.
All research outputs
#3,170,892
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#448
of 4,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,515
of 237,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#12
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 237,938 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.