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 |
Risk of bias tools in systematic reviews of health interventions: an analysis of PROSPERO-registered protocols
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, November 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-019-1172-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kelly Farrah, Kelsey Young, Matthew C. Tunis, Linlu Zhao |
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 | 3 | 27% |
| Germany | 1 | 9% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 9% |
| Australia | 1 | 9% |
| Colombia | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 64% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 18% |
| Scientists | 2 | 18% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 239 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 239 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 48 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 21 | 9% |
| Researcher | 12 | 5% |
| Other | 37 | 15% |
| Unknown | 73 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 44 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 32 | 13% |
| Psychology | 23 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 8 | 3% |
| Other | 40 | 17% |
| Unknown | 81 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 24 March 2021.
All research outputs
#2,625,652
of 25,564,614 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#444
of 2,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,380
of 374,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#19
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,564,614 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 2,240 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 374,076 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 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.