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 |
Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports , September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1097/xeb.0000000000000050 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Micah D.J. Peters, Christina M. Godfrey, Hanan Khalil, Patricia McInerney, Deborah Parker, Cassia Baldini Soares |
| Abstract |
Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. One of the newer review types is the 'scoping review'. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for the future research. This article briefly introduces the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different to systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 100 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 | 19 | 19% |
| Australia | 11 | 11% |
| Canada | 11 | 11% |
| United States | 6 | 6% |
| South Africa | 3 | 3% |
| Finland | 3 | 3% |
| Spain | 3 | 3% |
| Ireland | 2 | 2% |
| Brazil | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Unknown | 32 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 55 | 55% |
| Scientists | 27 | 27% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 16 | 16% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6,003 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 6 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| Australia | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 5985 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 992 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 759 | 13% |
| Researcher | 569 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 440 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 330 | 5% |
| Other | 1046 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1867 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 916 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 873 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 502 | 8% |
| Psychology | 325 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 162 | 3% |
| Other | 1134 | 19% |
| Unknown | 2091 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 83. 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 December 2023.
All research outputs
#521,690
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports
#4
of 430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,589
of 277,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports
#1
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 430 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. 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 277,521 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 92% of its contemporaries.