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 |
Boolean versus ranked querying for biomedical systematic reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, October 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-10-58 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarvnaz Karimi, Stefan Pohl, Falk Scholer, Lawrence Cavedon, Justin Zobel |
| Abstract |
The process of constructing a systematic review, a document that compiles the published evidence pertaining to a specified medical topic, is intensely time-consuming, often taking a team of researchers over a year, with the identification of relevant published research comprising a substantial portion of the effort. The standard paradigm for this information-seeking task is to use Boolean search; however, this leaves the user(s) the requirement of examining every returned result. Further, our experience is that effective Boolean queries for this specific task are extremely difficult to formulate and typically require multiple iterations of refinement before being finalized. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Singapore | 1 | 50% |
| India | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 4 | 4% |
| United States | 3 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Denmark | 1 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 90 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 12% |
| Researcher | 10 | 10% |
| Librarian | 9 | 9% |
| Other | 12 | 12% |
| Unknown | 23 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 20 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 14% |
| Unknown | 25 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 19 January 2016.
All research outputs
#2,385,654
of 22,914,829 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#162
of 1,997 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,565
of 99,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#3
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,914,829 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,997 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 99,183 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.