↓ Skip to main content

Considerations for conducting systematic reviews: evaluating the performance of different methods for de-duplicating references

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, January 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
82 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
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.
Title
Considerations for conducting systematic reviews: evaluating the performance of different methods for de-duplicating references
Published in
Systematic Reviews, January 2021
DOI 10.1186/s13643-021-01583-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sandra McKeown, Zuhaib M. Mir

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 82 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 14 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Unspecified 4 5%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 21 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 24%
Social Sciences 11 13%
Psychology 5 6%
Unspecified 4 5%
Computer Science 3 4%
Other 21 25%
Unknown 21 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. 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 27 May 2022.
All research outputs
#546,798
of 21,422,252 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#68
of 1,856 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,397
of 418,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,422,252 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,856 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 418,413 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them