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 |
Towards core outcome set (COS) development: a follow-up descriptive survey of outcomes in Cochrane reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-015-0060-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Francesca Wuytack, Valerie Smith, Mike Clarke, Paula Williamson, Elizabeth Gargon |
| Abstract |
A core outcome set (COS) can address problems of outcome heterogeneity and outcome reporting bias in trials and systematic reviews, including Cochrane reviews, helping to reduce waste. One of the aims of the international Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative is to link the development and use of COS with the outcomes specified and reported in Cochrane reviews, including the outcomes listed in the summary of findings (SoF) tables. As part of this work, an earlier exploratory survey of the outcomes of newly published 2007 and 2011 Cochrane reviews was performed. This survey examined the use of COS, the variety of specified outcomes, and outcome reporting in Cochrane reviews by Cochrane Review Group (CRG). To examine changes over time and to explore outcomes that were repeatedly specified over time in Cochrane reviews by CRG, we conducted a follow-up survey of outcomes in 2013 Cochrane reviews. A descriptive survey of outcomes in Cochrane reviews was first published in 2013. Outcomes specified in the methods sections and reported in the results section of the Cochrane reviews were examined by CRG. We also explored the uptake of SoF tables, the number of outcomes included in these, and the quality of the evidence for the outcomes. Across the 50 CRGs, 375 Cochrane reviews that included at least one study specified a total of 3142 outcomes. Of these outcomes, 32 % (1008) were not reported in the results section of these reviews. For 23 % (233) of these non-reported outcomes, we did not find any reason in the text of the review for this non-report. Fifty-seven percent (216/375) of reviews included a SoF table. The proportion of specified outcomes that were reported in Cochrane reviews had increased in 2013 (68 %) compared to 2007 (61 %) and 2011 (65 %). Importantly, 2013 Cochrane reviews that did not report specified outcomes were twice as likely to provide an explanation for why the outcome was not reported. There has been an increased uptake of SoF tables in Cochrane reviews. Outcomes that were repeatedly specified in Cochrane reviews by CRG in 2007, 2011, and 2013 may assist COS development. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 | 9 | 47% |
| United States | 3 | 16% |
| Canada | 1 | 5% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| Mexico | 1 | 5% |
| Japan | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 3 | 16% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 74% |
| Scientists | 3 | 16% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 18% |
| Researcher | 6 | 18% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Librarian | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 9 | 26% |
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 16 October 2015.
All research outputs
#3,647,136
of 25,330,051 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#670
of 2,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,039
of 272,736 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#14
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,330,051 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,218 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 272,736 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 37 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 64% of its contemporaries.