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 |
Pragmatic methods for reviewing exceptionally large bodies of evidence: systematic mapping review and overview of systematic reviews using lung cancer survival as an exemplar
|
---|---|
Published in |
Systematic Reviews, July 2019
|
DOI | 10.1186/s13643-019-1087-4 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Ruth Lewis, Maggie Hendry, Nafees Din, Marian A. Stanciu, Sadia Nafees, Annie Hendry, Zhi Hao Teoh, Thomas Lloyd, Rachel Parsonage, Richard D. Neal, Gareth Collier, Dyfed W. Huws |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 12 | 48% |
United States | 3 | 12% |
Spain | 2 | 8% |
Ireland | 1 | 4% |
Unknown | 7 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 15 | 60% |
Scientists | 6 | 24% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 12% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 65 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 10 | 15% |
Unspecified | 7 | 11% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 8% |
Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 6% |
Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
Other | 10 | 15% |
Unknown | 26 | 40% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 18% |
Unspecified | 7 | 11% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 8% |
Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
Other | 7 | 11% |
Unknown | 29 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 16 August 2019.
All research outputs
#2,195,071
of 24,892,887 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#362
of 2,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,148
of 351,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#14
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,892,887 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,171 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 351,715 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.