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 |
Systematic review automation technologies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-3-74 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Guy Tsafnat, Paul Glasziou, Miew Keen Choong, Adam Dunn, Filippo Galgani, Enrico Coiera |
| Abstract |
Systematic reviews, a cornerstone of evidence-based medicine, are not produced quickly enough to support clinical practice. The cost of production, availability of the requisite expertise and timeliness are often quoted as major contributors for the delay. This detailed survey of the state of the art of information systems designed to support or automate individual tasks in the systematic review, and in particular systematic reviews of randomized controlled clinical trials, reveals trends that see the convergence of several parallel research projects.We surveyed literature describing informatics systems that support or automate the processes of systematic review or each of the tasks of the systematic review. Several projects focus on automating, simplifying and/or streamlining specific tasks of the systematic review. Some tasks are already fully automated while others are still largely manual. In this review, we describe each task and the effect that its automation would have on the entire systematic review process, summarize the existing information system support for each task, and highlight where further research is needed for realizing automation for the task. Integration of the systems that automate systematic review tasks may lead to a revised systematic review workflow. We envisage the optimized workflow will lead to system in which each systematic review is described as a computer program that automatically retrieves relevant trials, appraises them, extracts and synthesizes data, evaluates the risk of bias, performs meta-analysis calculations, and produces a report in real time. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 122 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 20 | 16% |
| United States | 18 | 15% |
| Spain | 15 | 12% |
| Australia | 6 | 5% |
| Canada | 5 | 4% |
| Chile | 4 | 3% |
| Mexico | 2 | 2% |
| Colombia | 2 | 2% |
| Italy | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 8% |
| Unknown | 38 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 70 | 57% |
| Scientists | 32 | 26% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 17 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 577 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 8 | 1% |
| United States | 4 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 2 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | <1% |
| Unknown | 552 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 99 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 91 | 16% |
| Researcher | 68 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 34 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 33 | 6% |
| Other | 130 | 23% |
| Unknown | 122 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 99 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 93 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 35 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 28 | 5% |
| Engineering | 25 | 4% |
| Other | 144 | 25% |
| Unknown | 153 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 90. 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 21 February 2024.
All research outputs
#472,477
of 25,369,304 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#52
of 2,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,140
of 240,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#1
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,369,304 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,228 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 240,481 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 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 99% of its contemporaries.