| Title |
RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-11-20 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Geoff Wong, Trish Greenhalgh, Gill Westhorp, Jeanette Buckingham, Ray Pawson |
| Abstract |
Meta-narrative review is one of an emerging menu of new approaches to qualitative and mixed-method systematic review. A meta-narrative review seeks to illuminate a heterogeneous topic area by highlighting the contrasting and complementary ways in which researchers have studied the same or a similar topic. No previous publication standards exist for the reporting of meta-narrative reviews. This publication standard was developed as part of the RAMESES (Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) project. The project's aim is to produce preliminary publication standards for meta-narrative reviews. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 72 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 | 25 | 35% |
| Australia | 5 | 7% |
| Canada | 4 | 6% |
| United States | 4 | 6% |
| Spain | 2 | 3% |
| Chile | 2 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 1% |
| Ireland | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 24 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 35 | 49% |
| Scientists | 24 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 610 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 7 | 1% |
| United States | 3 | <1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 592 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 86 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 84 | 14% |
| Researcher | 59 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 36 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 32 | 5% |
| Other | 127 | 21% |
| Unknown | 186 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 94 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 70 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 47 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 35 | 6% |
| Engineering | 23 | 4% |
| Other | 114 | 19% |
| Unknown | 227 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. 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 04 July 2023.
All research outputs
#692,969
of 25,311,095 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#491
of 3,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,462
of 295,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#15
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,311,095 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 3,982 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 295,674 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 98% 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 82% of its contemporaries.