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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A research and development agenda for systematic reviews that ask complex questions about complex interventions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.07.003 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jane Noyes, David Gough, Simon Lewin, Alain Mayhew, Susan Michie, Tomas Pantoja, Mark Petticrew, Kevin Pottie, Eva Rehfuess, Ian Shemilt, Sasha Shepperd, Amanda Sowden, Peter Tugwell, Vivian Welch |
| Abstract |
This article outlines a research and development agenda for systematic reviews that ask complex questions about interventions varying in degree and type of complexity. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 4 | 40% |
| Spain | 2 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 3% |
| Portugal | 2 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Rwanda | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 134 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 32 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 16% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 9 | 6% |
| Professor | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 27 | 19% |
| Unknown | 22 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 26% |
| Social Sciences | 34 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 10% |
| Psychology | 10 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 10% |
| Unknown | 30 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 25 September 2014.
All research outputs
#6,237,583
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
#2,144
of 4,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,918
of 207,919 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
#17
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,782 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 207,919 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 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 69% of its contemporaries.