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 |
Nature and reporting characteristics of UK health technology assessment systematic reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-018-0498-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher Carroll, Eva Kaltenthaler |
| Abstract |
A recent study by Page et al. (PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028) claimed that increasing numbers of reviews are being published and many are poorly-conducted and reported. The aim of the present study was to assess how well reporting standards of systematic reviews produced in a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) context compare with reporting in Cochrane and other 'non-Cochrane' systematic reviews from the same years (2004 and 2014), as reported by Page et al. (PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028). All relevant UK HTA programme systematic reviews published in 2004 and 2014 were identified. After piloting of the form, two reviewers each extracted relevant data on conduct and reporting from these reviews. These data were compared with data for Cochrane and "non-Cochrane" systematic reviews, as published by Page et al. (PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028). All data were tabulated and summarized. There were 30 UK HTA programme systematic reviews and 300 other systematic reviews, including Cochrane reviews (n = 45). The percentage of HTA reviews with required elements of conduct and reporting was frequently very similar to Cochrane and much higher than all other systematic reviews, e.g. availability of protocols (90, 98 and 16% respectively); the specification of study design criteria (100, 100, 79%); the reporting of outcomes (100, 100, 78%), quality assessment (100, 100, 70%); the searching of trial registries for unpublished data (70, 62, 19%); reporting of reasons for excluding studies (91, 91 and 70%) and reporting of authors' conflicts of interests (100, 100, 87%). HTA reviews only compared less favourably with Cochrane and other reviews in assessments of publication bias. UK HTA systematic reviews are often produced within a specific policy-making context. This context has implications for timelines, tools and resources. However, UK HTA systematic reviews still tend to present standards of conduct and reporting equivalent to "gold standard" Cochrane reviews and superior to systematic reviews more generally. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 | 5 | 36% |
| Australia | 1 | 7% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 7% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 7% |
| Norway | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 57% |
| Scientists | 4 | 29% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Librarian | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 6 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 4 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 15% |
| Engineering | 2 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 7 | 27% |
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 26 July 2018.
All research outputs
#3,711,076
of 25,032,929 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#581
of 2,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,010
of 333,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#12
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,032,929 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 2,232 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 333,888 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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 60% of its contemporaries.