| Title |
Systematic reviews of adverse effects: framework for a structured approach
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-7-32 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yoon K Loke, Deirdre Price, Andrew Herxheimer, the Cochrane Adverse Effects Methods Group |
| Abstract |
As every healthcare intervention carries some risk of harm, clinical decision making needs to be supported by a systematic assessment of the balance of benefit to harm. A systematic review that considers only the favourable outcomes of an intervention, without also assessing the adverse effects, can mislead by introducing a bias favouring the intervention. Much of the current guidance on systematic reviews is directed towards the evaluation of effectiveness; but this differs in important ways from the methods used in assessing the safety and tolerability of an intervention. A detailed discussion of why, how and when to include adverse effects in a systematic review, is required. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 245 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 2% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 228 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 45 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 33 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 32 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 15 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 6% |
| Other | 71 | 29% |
| Unknown | 35 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 102 | 42% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 11 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 3% |
| Other | 39 | 16% |
| Unknown | 50 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 2021.
All research outputs
#1,994,591
of 25,078,088 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#263
of 2,236 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,973
of 75,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,078,088 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 2,236 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 75,963 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.