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 systematic method for search term selection in systematic reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Research Synthesis Methods, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/jrsm.1096 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jenna Thompson, Jacqueline Davis, Lorraine Mazerolle |
| Abstract |
The wide variety of readily available electronic media grants anyone the freedom to retrieve published references from almost any area of research around the world. Despite this privilege, keeping up with primary research evidence is almost impossible because of the increase in professional publishing across disciplines. Systematic reviews are a solution to this problem as they aim to synthesize all current information on a particular topic and present a balanced and unbiased summary of the findings. They are fast becoming an important method of research across a number of fields, yet only a small number of guidelines exist on how to define and select terms for a systematic search. This article presents a replicable method for selecting terms in a systematic search using the semantic concept recognition software called leximancer (Leximancer, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia). We use this software to construct a set of terms from a corpus of literature pertaining to transborder interventions for drug control and discuss the applicability of this method to systematic reviews in general. This method aims to contribute a more 'systematic' approach for selecting terms in a manner that is entirely replicable for any user. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Peru | 1 | 20% |
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| Australia | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 4% |
| Peru | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 76 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Librarian | 19 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 18% |
| Researcher | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 18% |
| Unknown | 11 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 14% |
| Psychology | 9 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 15 | 19% |
| Unknown | 15 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 June 2019.
All research outputs
#8,533,995
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Research Synthesis Methods
#358
of 551 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,448
of 210,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Synthesis Methods
#6
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 551 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 210,754 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.