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 |
SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 7: Finding systematic reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Research Policy and Systems, December 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1478-4505-7-s1-s7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John N Lavis, Andrew D Oxman, Jeremy Grimshaw, Marit Johansen, Jennifer A Boyko, Simon Lewin, Atle Fretheim |
| Abstract |
This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. Systematic reviews are increasingly seen as a key source of information in policymaking, particularly in terms of assisting with descriptions of the impacts of options. Relative to single studies they offer a number of advantages related to understanding impacts and are also seen as a key source of information for clarifying problems and providing complementary perspectives on options. Systematic reviews can be undertaken to place problems in comparative perspective and to describe the likely harms of an option. They also assist with understanding the meanings that individuals or groups attach to a problem, how and why options work, and stakeholder views and experiences related to particular options. A number of constraints have hindered the wider use of systematic reviews in policymaking. These include a lack of awareness of their value and a mismatch between the terms employed by policymakers, when attempting to retrieve systematic reviews, and the terms used by the original authors of those reviews. Mismatches between the types of information that policymakers are seeking, and the way in which authors fail to highlight (or make obvious) such information within systematic reviews have also proved problematic. In this article, we suggest three questions that can be used to guide those searching for systematic reviews, particularly reviews about the impacts of options being considered. These are: 1. Is a systematic review really what is needed? 2. What databases and search strategies can be used to find relevant systematic reviews? 3. What alternatives are available when no relevant review can be found? |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 9 | 64% |
| United States | 2 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 21% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 93% |
| Scientists | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 200 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 4 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 2% |
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 1% |
| Australia | 2 | 1% |
| South Africa | 2 | 1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | 2% |
| Unknown | 176 | 88% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 35 | 18% |
| Researcher | 35 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 32 | 16% |
| Other | 17 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 45 | 23% |
| Unknown | 23 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 82 | 41% |
| Social Sciences | 32 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 3% |
| Psychology | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 30 | 15% |
| Unknown | 28 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 11 January 2022.
All research outputs
#2,771,742
of 23,923,788 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#399
of 1,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,194
of 168,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#5
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,923,788 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,256 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 168,757 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.