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 |
Automated screening of research studies for systematic reviews using study characteristics
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-018-0724-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Guy Tsafnat, Paul Glasziou, George Karystianis, Enrico Coiera |
| Abstract |
Screening candidate studies for inclusion in a systematic review is time-consuming when conducted manually. Automation tools could reduce the human effort devoted to screening. Existing methods use supervised machine learning which train classifiers to identify relevant words in the abstracts of candidate articles that have previously been labelled by a human reviewer for inclusion or exclusion. Such classifiers typically reduce the number of abstracts requiring manual screening by about 50%. We extracted four key characteristics of observational studies (population, exposure, confounders and outcomes) from the text of titles and abstracts for all articles retrieved using search strategies from systematic reviews. Our screening method excluded studies if they did not meet a predefined set of characteristics. The method was evaluated using three systematic reviews. Screening results were compared to the actual inclusion list of the reviews. The best screening threshold rule identified studies that mentioned both exposure (E) and outcome (O) in the study abstract. This screening rule excluded 93.7% of retrieved studies with a recall of 98%. Filtering studies for inclusion in a systematic review based on the detection of key study characteristics in abstracts significantly outperformed standard approaches to automated screening and appears worthy of further development and evaluation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 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 | 8 | 25% |
| Australia | 4 | 13% |
| Canada | 3 | 9% |
| Mexico | 2 | 6% |
| United States | 2 | 6% |
| Greece | 1 | 3% |
| Norway | 1 | 3% |
| Chile | 1 | 3% |
| India | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 8 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 50% |
| Scientists | 12 | 38% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 78 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 9% |
| Librarian | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 17% |
| Unknown | 26 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 31% |
| Computer Science | 9 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Unknown | 29 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 2022.
All research outputs
#1,476,037
of 25,056,530 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#215
of 2,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,451
of 332,213 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#8
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,056,530 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,184 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 332,213 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.