↓ Skip to main content

Routine development of objectively derived search strategies

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, February 2012
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 (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

2 blogs
9 tweeters
1 Google+ user


61 Dimensions

Readers on

107 Mendeley
1 CiteULike
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.
Routine development of objectively derived search strategies
Published in
Systematic Reviews, February 2012
DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-1-19
Pubmed ID

Elke Hausner, Siw Waffenschmidt, Thomas Kaiser, Michael Simon


Over the past few years, information retrieval has become more and more professionalized, and information specialists are considered full members of a research team conducting systematic reviews. Research groups preparing systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines have been the driving force in the development of search strategies, but open questions remain regarding the transparency of the development process and the available resources. An empirically guided approach to the development of a search strategy provides a way to increase transparency and efficiency.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 4 4%
United States 2 2%
Germany 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Uganda 1 <1%
Unknown 96 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 22 21%
Researcher 16 15%
Student > Master 16 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 7%
Other 25 23%
Unknown 10 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 13%
Computer Science 10 9%
Social Sciences 8 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 17 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 04 April 2022.
All research outputs
of 21,468,133 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
of 1,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 142,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,468,133 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,862 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 142,345 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them