↓ Skip to main content

Evidence map of studies evaluating methods for conducting, interpreting and reporting overviews of systematic reviews of interventions: rationale and design

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
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.
Title
Evidence map of studies evaluating methods for conducting, interpreting and reporting overviews of systematic reviews of interventions: rationale and design
Published in
Systematic Reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0178-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carole Lunny, Sue E. Brennan, Steve McDonald, Joanne E. McKenzie

Abstract

Overviews of systematic reviews attempt to systematically retrieve and summarise the results of multiple systematic reviews into a single document. Methods for conducting, interpreting and reporting overviews of reviews are in their infancy. To date, there has been no systematic review or evidence map examining the range of methods for overviews nor of the evidence for using these methods. The objectives of the study are to develop and populate a framework of methods that have or may be used in conducting, interpreting and reporting overviews of systematic reviews of interventions (stage I); create an evidence map of studies that have evaluated these methods (stage II); and identify and describe unique methodological challenges of overviews. The research will be undertaken in two stages. For both stages, we plan to search methods collections (e.g. Cochrane Methodology Register, Meth4ReSyn library, AHRQ Effective Health Care Program) to identify eligible studies. These searches will be supplemented by searching reference lists and citation searching. Stage I: Methods used in overviews will be identified from articles describing methods for overviews, methods studies examining a cross section/cohort of overviews, guidance documents and commentaries. The identified methods will populate a framework of available methods for conducting an overview. Two reviewers will independently code included studies to develop the framework. Thematic analysis of the coded data will be used to categorise and describe methods. Stage II: Evaluations of the performance of methods will be identified from systematic reviews of methods studies and methods studies. Evaluations will be described and mapped to the framework of methods identified in stage I. The results of this process will be useful for mapping of methods for overviews of systematic reviews, informing guidance and identifying and prioritising method research in this field.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Unknown 60 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 16%
Researcher 9 15%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Librarian 4 6%
Other 14 23%
Unknown 14 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Computer Science 4 6%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 19 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 May 2016.
All research outputs
#2,623,489
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#451
of 2,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,174
of 400,124 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#9
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,228 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 400,124 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.