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 |
Performance and usability of machine learning for screening in systematic reviews: a comparative evaluation of three tools
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, November 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-019-1222-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Allison Gates, Samantha Guitard, Jennifer Pillay, Sarah A. Elliott, Michele P. Dyson, Amanda S. Newton, Lisa Hartling |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 | 6 | 55% |
| United Arab Emirates | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 73% |
| Scientists | 2 | 18% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 99 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 9% |
| Librarian | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 19 | 19% |
| Unknown | 36 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 15% |
| Computer Science | 13 | 13% |
| Engineering | 7 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 14% |
| Unknown | 44 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 02 December 2019.
All research outputs
#2,369,039
of 23,175,240 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#420
of 2,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,517
of 358,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#18
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,175,240 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,014 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 358,534 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.