| Title |
A protocol for a systematic literature review: comparing the impact of seasonal and meteorological parameters on acute respiratory infections in Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-016-0399-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Katherine E. Bishop-Williams, Jan M. Sargeant, Lea Berrang-Ford, Victoria L. Edge, Ashlee Cunsolo, Sherilee L. Harper |
| Abstract |
Acute respiratory infections (ARI) are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally, and are often linked to seasonal and/or meteorological conditions. Globally, Indigenous peoples may experience a different burden of ARI compared to non-Indigenous peoples. This protocol outlines our process for conducting a systematic review to investigate whether associations between ARI and seasonal or meteorological parameters differ between Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups residing in the same geographical region. A search string will be used to search PubMed(®), CAB Abstracts/CAB Direct(©), and Science Citation Index(®) aggregator databases. Articles will be screened using inclusion/exclusion criteria applied first at the title and abstract level, and then at the full article level by two independent reviewers. Articles maintained after full article screening will undergo risk of bias assessment and data will be extracted. Heterogeneity tests, meta-analysis, and forest and funnel plots will be used to synthesize the results of eligible studies. This protocol paper describes our systematic review methods to identify and analyze relevant ARI, season, and meteorological literature with robust reporting. The results are intended to improve our understanding of potential associations between seasonal and meteorological parameters and ARI and, if identified, whether this association varies by place, population, or other characteristics. The protocol is registered in the PROSPERO database (#38051). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 4 | 67% |
| Djibouti | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 77 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 10% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 17% |
| Unknown | 14 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 19% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 9% |
| Environmental Science | 5 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 16 | 21% |
| Unknown | 21 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 31 January 2017.
All research outputs
#6,032,473
of 22,947,506 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,143
of 2,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,643
of 418,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#22
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,947,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,004 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 418,939 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.