↓ Skip to main content

In pursuit of certainty: can the systematic review process deliver?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
45 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
In pursuit of certainty: can the systematic review process deliver?
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, February 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-13-25
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deborah Saltman, Debra Jackson, Phillip J Newton, Patricia M Davidson

Abstract

There has been increasing emphasis on evidence-based approaches to improve patient outcomes through rigorous, standardised and well-validated approaches. Clinical guidelines drive this process and are largely developed based on the findings of systematic reviews (SRs). This paper presents a discussion of the SR process in providing decisive information to shape and guide clinical practice, using a purpose-built review database: the Cochrane reviews; and focussing on a highly prevalent medical condition: hypertension.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Egypt 1 2%
Unknown 43 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 22%
Other 7 15%
Student > Postgraduate 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 14 30%
Unknown 2 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Psychology 3 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 4 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 20 November 2013.
All research outputs
#1,430,602
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#62
of 2,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,579
of 205,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#3
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,154 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 205,408 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.