| Title |
Interpreting systematic reviews: are we ready to make our own conclusions? A cross-sectional study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, March 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-9-30 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nai Ming Lai, Cheong Lieng Teng, Ming Lee Lee |
| Abstract |
Independent evaluation of clinical evidence is advocated in evidence-based medicine (EBM). However, authors' conclusions are often appealing for readers who look for quick messages. We assessed how well a group of Malaysian hospital practitioners and medical students derived their own conclusions from systematic reviews (SRs) and to what extent these were influenced by their prior beliefs and the direction of the study results. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 5% |
| Ireland | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 35 | 85% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 24% |
| Researcher | 7 | 17% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 22% |
| Unknown | 4 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 54% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 21 November 2013.
All research outputs
#2,979,747
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,788
of 3,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,585
of 110,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#13
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,569 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.5. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 110,441 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.