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 |
An evaluation of harvest plots to display results of meta-analyses in overviews of reviews: a cross-sectional study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-015-0084-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Katelynn Crick, Aireen Wingert, Katrina Williams, Ricardo M. Fernandes, Denise Thomson, Lisa Hartling |
| Abstract |
Harvest plots are used to graphically display evidence from complex and diverse studies or results. Overviews of reviews bring together evidence from two or more systematic reviews. Our objective was to determine the feasibility of using harvest plots to depict complex results of overviews of reviews. We conducted a survey of 279 members of Cochrane Child Health to determine their preferences for graphical display of data, and their understanding of data presented in the form of harvest plots. Preferences were rated on a scale of 0-100 (100 most preferred) and tabulated using descriptive statistics. Knowledge and accuracy were assessed by tabulating the number of correctly answered questions for harvest plots and traditional data summary tables; t-tests were used to compare responses between formats. 53 individuals from 7 countries completed the survey (19 %): 60 % were females; the majority had an MD (38 %), PhD (47 %), or equivalent. Respondents had published a median of 3 systematic reviews (inter-quartile range 1 to 8). There were few differences between harvest plots and tables in terms of being: well-suited to summarize and display results from meta-analysis (52 vs. 56); easy to understand (53 vs. 51); and, intuitive (49 vs. 44). Harvest plots were considered more aesthetically pleasing (56 vs. 44, p = 0.03). 40 % felt the harvest plots could be used in conjunction with tables to display results from meta-analyses; additionally, 45 % felt the harvest plots could be used with some improvement. There was no statistically significant difference in percentage of knowledge questions answered correctly for harvest plots compared with tables. When considering both types of data display, 21 % of knowledge questions were answered incorrectly. Neither harvest plots nor standard summary tables were ranked highly in terms of being easy to understand or intuitive, reflecting that neither format is ideal to summarize the results of meta-analyses in overviews of reviews. Responses to knowledge questions showed some misinterpretation of results of meta-analyses. Reviewers should ensure that messages are clearly articulated and summarized in the text to avoid misinterpretation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 22% |
| United States | 1 | 11% |
| Argentina | 1 | 11% |
| Portugal | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 78% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
| Scientists | 1 | 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 | 7 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 18% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 15% |
| Researcher | 4 | 12% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 5 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 15% |
| Psychology | 4 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 9% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 8 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 14 December 2022.
All research outputs
#3,948,266
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#619
of 2,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,369
of 287,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#6
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,109 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 287,075 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.