↓ Skip to main content

Graphical displays for effective reporting of evidence quality tables in research syntheses

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Health, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Graphical displays for effective reporting of evidence quality tables in research syntheses
Published in
Reproductive Health, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12978-016-0130-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luciano Mignini, Rita Champaneria, Ekaterina Mishanina, Khalid S. Khan

Abstract

When generating guidelines, quality of the evidence is tabulated to capture its several domains, often using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. We developed a graphic display to capture deficiencies, outliers and similarities across comparisons contained in GRADE tables. Based on a systematic literature review capturing the effects of 32 different therapeutic comparisons on dysmenorrhoea, we synthesised evidence quality in tables and graphs. We evaluated time taken to accurately assess evident quality and preference for tables vs graphs. The plots provided visually striking displays of strengths and weaknesses of the evidence across the spectrum of comparisons on a single page. Equivalent tabulated information spread over 4 pages. Participants preferred and interpreted graphs quicker and more accurately than tables. The graphic approach we developed makes interpreting evidence easier. Large tables are dry and cumbersome to read and assimilate. When guideline statements are accompanied by these plots, they have the scope for improving the credibility of the recommendations made, as the strength of the evidence used can be clearly seen. Further empirical research will establish the place for graphic displays.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 19%
Student > Bachelor 6 19%
Researcher 4 13%
Other 4 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 41%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Computer Science 2 6%
Environmental Science 2 6%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 3 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 March 2019.
All research outputs
#7,809,546
of 14,465,534 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#633
of 965 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,505
of 266,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#10
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,465,534 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 965 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 266,938 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 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.