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) 8: Deciding how much confidence to place in a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Research Policy and Systems, December 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1478-4505-7-s1-s8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Simon Lewin, Andrew D Oxman, John N Lavis, 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. The reliability of systematic reviews of the effects of health interventions is variable. Consequently, policymakers and others need to assess how much confidence can be placed in such evidence. The use of systematic and transparent processes to determine such decisions can help to prevent the introduction of errors and bias in these judgements. In this article, we suggest five questions that can be considered when deciding how much confidence to place in the findings of a systematic review of the effects of an intervention. These are: 1. Did the review explicitly address an appropriate policy or management question? 2. Were appropriate criteria used when considering studies for the review? 3. Was the search for relevant studies detailed and reasonably comprehensive? 4. Were assessments of the studies' relevance to the review topic and of their risk of bias reproducible? 5. Were the results similar from study to study? |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 304 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 1% |
| Canada | 3 | <1% |
| Australia | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| South Africa | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Sierra Leone | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 3 | <1% |
| Unknown | 284 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 43 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 42 | 14% |
| Researcher | 41 | 13% |
| Other | 21 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 14 | 5% |
| Other | 48 | 16% |
| Unknown | 95 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 68 | 22% |
| Social Sciences | 41 | 13% |
| Psychology | 21 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 3% |
| Other | 46 | 15% |
| Unknown | 106 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 October 2021.
All research outputs
#7,170,037
of 22,663,150 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#811
of 1,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,916
of 163,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#12
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,150 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,201 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 163,443 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.