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 |
The selection of search sources influences the findings of a systematic review of people’s views: a case study in public health
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-12-55 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claire Stansfield, Josephine Kavanagh, Rebecca Rees, Alan Gomersall, James Thomas |
| Abstract |
For systematic reviews providing evidence for policy decisions in specific geographical regions, there is a need to minimise regional bias when seeking out relevant research studies. Studies on people's views tend to be dispersed across a range of bibliographic databases and other search sources. It is recognised that a comprehensive literature search can provide unique evidence not found from a focused search; however, the geographical focus of databases as a potential source of bias on the findings of a research review is less clear. This case study describes search source selection for research about people's views and how supplementary searches designed to redress geographical bias influenced the findings of a systematic review. Our research questions are: a) what was the impact of search methods employed to redress potential database selection bias on the overall findings of the review? and b) how did each search source contribute to the identification of all the research studies included in the review? |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 43% |
| South Africa | 1 | 14% |
| Australia | 1 | 14% |
| Canada | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 1 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Scientists | 2 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 7% |
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| Sweden | 1 | 1% |
| Portugal | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 56 | 84% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 25% |
| Librarian | 11 | 16% |
| Researcher | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 17 | 25% |
| Unknown | 4 | 6% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 36% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 9% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 16% |
| Unknown | 8 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 23 August 2013.
All research outputs
#7,209,087
of 23,520,142 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,065
of 2,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,292
of 163,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#5
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,520,142 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,076 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 163,025 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.