| Title |
The challenges of including sex/gender analysis in systematic reviews: a qualitative survey
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-3-33 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vivien Runnels, Sari Tudiver, Marion Doull, Madeline Boscoe |
| Abstract |
Systematic review methodology includes the rigorous collection, selection, and evaluation of data in order to synthesize the best available evidence for health practice, health technology assessments, and health policy. Despite evidence that sex and gender matter to health outcomes, data and analysis related to sex and gender are frequently absent in systematic reviews, raising concerns about the quality and applicability of reviews. Few studies have focused on challenges to implementing sex/gender analysis within systematic reviews. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 7% |
| Chile | 1 | 7% |
| Canada | 1 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 7% |
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 9 | 64% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 57% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 29% |
| Scientists | 2 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 137 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 29 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 11% |
| Other | 10 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 33 | 23% |
| Unknown | 28 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 43 | 30% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 9% |
| Psychology | 7 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 26 | 18% |
| Unknown | 32 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 17 April 2019.
All research outputs
#1,840,804
of 24,788,795 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#295
of 2,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,417
of 233,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#3
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,788,795 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,158 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 233,577 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 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 92% of its contemporaries.