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 |
A scoping review of rapid review methods
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrea C. Tricco, Jesmin Antony, Wasifa Zarin, Lisa Strifler, Marco Ghassemi, John Ivory, Laure Perrier, Brian Hutton, David Moher, Sharon E. Straus |
| Abstract |
Rapid reviews are a form of knowledge synthesis in which components of the systematic review process are simplified or omitted to produce information in a timely manner. Although numerous centers are conducting rapid reviews internationally, few studies have examined the methodological characteristics of rapid reviews. We aimed to examine articles, books, and reports that evaluated, compared, used or described rapid reviews or methods through a scoping review. MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, internet websites of rapid review producers, and reference lists were searched to identify articles for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened literature search results and abstracted data from included studies. Descriptive analysis was conducted. We included 100 articles plus one companion report that were published between 1997 and 2013. The studies were categorized as 84 application papers, seven development papers, six impact papers, and four comparison papers (one was included in two categories). The rapid reviews were conducted between 1 and 12 months, predominantly in Europe (58 %) and North America (20 %). The included studies failed to report 6 % to 73 % of the specific systematic review steps examined. Fifty unique rapid review methods were identified; 16 methods occurred more than once. Streamlined methods that were used in the 82 rapid reviews included limiting the literature search to published literature (24 %) or one database (2 %), limiting inclusion criteria by date (68 %) or language (49 %), having one person screen and another verify or screen excluded studies (6 %), having one person abstract data and another verify (23 %), not conducting risk of bias/quality appraisal (7 %) or having only one reviewer conduct the quality appraisal (7 %), and presenting results as a narrative summary (78 %). Four case studies were identified that compared the results of rapid reviews to systematic reviews. Three studies found that the conclusions between rapid reviews and systematic reviews were congruent. Numerous rapid review approaches were identified and few were used consistently in the literature. Poor quality of reporting was observed. A prospective study comparing the results from rapid reviews to those obtained through systematic reviews is warranted. |
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 | 11 | 34% |
| Canada | 4 | 13% |
| United States | 2 | 6% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 3% |
| Brazil | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Ireland | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 11 | 34% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 50% |
| Scientists | 10 | 31% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,283 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| Canada | 3 | <1% |
| Chile | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 1270 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 175 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 168 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 143 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 120 | 9% |
| Other | 58 | 5% |
| Other | 270 | 21% |
| Unknown | 349 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 243 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 139 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 119 | 9% |
| Psychology | 71 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 46 | 4% |
| Other | 251 | 20% |
| Unknown | 414 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. 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 24 July 2023.
All research outputs
#853,711
of 25,724,500 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#605
of 4,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,296
of 268,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#22
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,724,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,079 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 268,945 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 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.