The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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.
Timeline
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
Title |
Studying the potential impact of automated document classification on scheduling a systematic review update
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, April 2012
|
DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-12-33 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Aaron M Cohen, Kyle Ambert, Marian McDonagh |
Abstract |
Systematic Reviews (SRs) are an essential part of evidence-based medicine, providing support for clinical practice and policy on a wide range of medical topics. However, producing SRs is resource-intensive, and progress in the research they review leads to SRs becoming outdated, requiring updates. Although the question of how and when to update SRs has been studied, the best method for determining when to update is still unclear, necessitating further research. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 2 | 40% |
United Kingdom | 2 | 40% |
India | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
Scientists | 2 | 40% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
Canada | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 80 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 16 | 19% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 18% |
Researcher | 13 | 16% |
Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
Other | 5 | 6% |
Other | 14 | 17% |
Unknown | 14 | 17% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 28% |
Computer Science | 22 | 27% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 5% |
Psychology | 3 | 4% |
Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
Other | 12 | 14% |
Unknown | 16 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 13 February 2013.
All research outputs
#6,245,826
of 22,664,644 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#584
of 1,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,658
of 161,911 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#9
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,644 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,978 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 161,911 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 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.