↓ Skip to main content

Surveillance systems evaluation: a systematic review of the existing approaches

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, May 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 (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
1 policy source
8 tweeters


50 Dimensions

Readers on

356 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.
Surveillance systems evaluation: a systematic review of the existing approaches
Published in
BMC Public Health, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-1791-5
Pubmed ID

Clementine Calba, Flavie L Goutard, Linda Hoinville, Pascal Hendrikx, Ann Lindberg, Claude Saegerman, Marisa Peyre


Regular and relevant evaluations of surveillance systems are essential to improve their performance and cost-effectiveness. With this in mind several organizations have developed evaluation approaches to facilitate the design and implementation of these evaluations. In order to identify and to compare the advantages and limitations of these approaches, we implemented a systematic review using the PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). After applying exclusion criteria and identifying other additional documents via citations, 15 documents were retained. These were analysed to assess the field (public or animal health) and the type of surveillance systems targeted; the development process; the objectives; the evaluation process and its outputs; and the attributes covered. Most of the approaches identified were general and provided broad recommendations for evaluation. Several common steps in the evaluation process were identified: (i) defining the surveillance system under evaluation, (ii) designing the evaluation process, (iii) implementing the evaluation, and (iv) drawing conclusions and recommendations. A lack of information regarding the identification and selection of methods and tools to assess the evaluation attributes was highlighted; as well as a lack of consideration of economic attributes and sociological aspects.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 356 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Gambia 1 <1%
Cameroon 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 350 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 87 24%
Researcher 54 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 12%
Student > Bachelor 25 7%
Student > Postgraduate 22 6%
Other 65 18%
Unknown 59 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 89 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 62 17%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 28 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 8%
Social Sciences 19 5%
Other 55 15%
Unknown 76 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 01 April 2019.
All research outputs
of 14,544,183 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
of 10,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 227,643 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,544,183 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 227,643 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them