↓ Skip to main content

A primer on systematic reviews in toxicology

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Toxicology, May 2017
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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
18 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 Mendeley
Title
A primer on systematic reviews in toxicology
Published in
Archives of Toxicology, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00204-017-1980-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sebastian Hoffmann, Rob B. M. de Vries, Martin L. Stephens, Nancy B. Beck, Hubert A. A. M. Dirven, John R. Fowle, Julie E. Goodman, Thomas Hartung, Ian Kimber, Manoj M. Lalu, Kristina Thayer, Paul Whaley, Daniele Wikoff, Katya Tsaioun

Abstract

Systematic reviews, pioneered in the clinical field, provide a transparent, methodologically rigorous and reproducible means of summarizing the available evidence on a precisely framed research question. Having matured to a well-established approach in many research fields, systematic reviews are receiving increasing attention as a potential tool for answering toxicological questions. In the larger framework of evidence-based toxicology, the advantages and obstacles of, as well as the approaches for, adapting and adopting systematic reviews to toxicology are still being explored. To provide the toxicology community with a starting point for conducting or understanding systematic reviews, we herein summarized available guidance documents from various fields of application. We have elaborated on the systematic review process by breaking it down into ten steps, starting with planning the project, framing the question, and writing and publishing the protocol, and concluding with interpretation and reporting. In addition, we have identified the specific methodological challenges of toxicological questions and have summarized how these can be addressed. Ultimately, this primer is intended to stimulate scientific discussions of the identified issues to fuel the development of toxicology-specific methodology and to encourage the application of systematic review methodology to toxicological issues.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 101 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 21%
Student > Master 18 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 6 6%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 22 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 18 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 9%
Environmental Science 7 7%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 29 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 15 March 2023.
All research outputs
#1,691,945
of 24,375,780 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Toxicology
#107
of 2,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,779
of 313,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Toxicology
#5
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,375,780 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,759 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 313,467 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.