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 |
Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-018-0495-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Monika Mueller, Maddalena D’Addario, Matthias Egger, Myriam Cevallos, Olaf Dekkers, Catrina Mugglin, Pippa Scott |
| Abstract |
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies are frequently performed, but no widely accepted guidance is available at present. We performed a systematic scoping review of published methodological recommendations on how to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies. We searched online databases and websites and contacted experts in the field to locate potentially eligible articles. We included articles that provided any type of recommendation on how to conduct systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. We extracted and summarised recommendations on pre-defined key items: protocol development, research question, search strategy, study eligibility, data extraction, dealing with different study designs, risk of bias assessment, publication bias, heterogeneity, statistical analysis. We summarised recommendations by key item, identifying areas of agreement and disagreement as well as areas where recommendations were missing or scarce. The searches identified 2461 articles of which 93 were eligible. Many recommendations for reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies were transferred from guidance developed for reviews and meta-analyses of RCTs. Although there was substantial agreement in some methodological areas there was also considerable disagreement on how evidence synthesis of observational studies should be conducted. Conflicting recommendations were seen on topics such as the inclusion of different study designs in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the use of quality scales to assess the risk of bias, and the choice of model (e.g. fixed vs. random effects) for meta-analysis. There is a need for sound methodological guidance on how to conduct systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies, which critically considers areas in which there are conflicting recommendations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 81 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 | 15 | 19% |
| United States | 7 | 9% |
| Netherlands | 5 | 6% |
| Ireland | 3 | 4% |
| Hong Kong | 2 | 2% |
| Chile | 2 | 2% |
| Australia | 2 | 2% |
| Belgium | 2 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 15% |
| Unknown | 29 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 35 | 43% |
| Scientists | 32 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 11 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 430 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 430 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 69 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 50 | 12% |
| Researcher | 43 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 38 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 25 | 6% |
| Other | 85 | 20% |
| Unknown | 120 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 103 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 42 | 10% |
| Psychology | 29 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 10 | 2% |
| Other | 82 | 19% |
| Unknown | 150 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 58. 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 February 2023.
All research outputs
#730,833
of 25,386,384 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#55
of 2,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,139
of 344,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#2
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,386,384 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,279 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 344,031 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.