| Title |
Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-4-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alison O’Mara-Eves, James Thomas, John McNaught, Makoto Miwa, Sophia Ananiadou |
| Abstract |
The large and growing number of published studies, and their increasing rate of publication, makes the task of identifying relevant studies in an unbiased way for inclusion in systematic reviews both complex and time consuming. Text mining has been offered as a potential solution: through automating some of the screening process, reviewer time can be saved. The evidence base around the use of text mining for screening has not yet been pulled together systematically; this systematic review fills that research gap. Focusing mainly on non-technical issues, the review aims to increase awareness of the potential of these technologies and promote further collaborative research between the computer science and systematic review communities. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 196 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 | 46 | 23% |
| United States | 24 | 12% |
| Spain | 7 | 4% |
| Canada | 7 | 4% |
| Australia | 6 | 3% |
| Sweden | 5 | 3% |
| Germany | 5 | 3% |
| Poland | 2 | 1% |
| South Africa | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 19 | 10% |
| Unknown | 73 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 120 | 61% |
| Scientists | 56 | 29% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 13 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 7 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 651 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 7 | 1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 634 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 103 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 95 | 15% |
| Researcher | 77 | 12% |
| Librarian | 41 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 33 | 5% |
| Other | 155 | 24% |
| Unknown | 147 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 128 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 103 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 40 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 36 | 6% |
| Engineering | 27 | 4% |
| Other | 148 | 23% |
| Unknown | 169 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 155. 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 06 March 2023.
All research outputs
#268,544
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#21
of 2,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,057
of 367,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#3
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 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 2,251 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 99% 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 367,368 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 90% of its contemporaries.