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 |
Cochrane: the unfinished symphony of research synthesis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-016-0290-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ian Roberts, Katharine Ker |
| Abstract |
The NHS needs valid information on the safety and effectiveness of healthcare interventions. Cochrane systematic reviews are an important source of this information. Traditionally, Cochrane has attempted to identify and include all relevant trials in systematic reviews on the basis that if all trials are identified and included, there should be no selection bias. However, a predictable consequence of the drive to include all trials is that some studies are included that are not trials (false positives). Including such studies in reviews might increase bias. More effort is needed to authenticate trials to be included in reviews, but this task is bedevilled by the enormous increase in the number of 'trials' conducted each year. We argue that excluding small trials from reviews would release resources for more detailed appraisal of larger trials. Conducting fewer but broader reviews that contain fewer but properly validated trials might better serve patients' interests. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 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 | 14 | 33% |
| United States | 5 | 12% |
| Spain | 2 | 5% |
| Canada | 2 | 5% |
| Sweden | 1 | 2% |
| South Africa | 1 | 2% |
| Belgium | 1 | 2% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 16 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 25 | 58% |
| Scientists | 9 | 21% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 19% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 7% |
| Norway | 1 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 21 | 78% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Librarian | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 19% |
| Researcher | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 22% |
| Unknown | 2 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 41% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Psychology | 2 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 03 August 2016.
All research outputs
#1,573,645
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#236
of 2,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,885
of 371,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#6
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,229 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 89% 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 371,041 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.