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 |
Third-wave cognitive behaviour therapies for weight management: systematic review and network meta-analysis protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMJ Open, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023425 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emma R Lawlor, Nazrul Islam, Simon J Griffin, Andrew J Hill, Carly A Hughes, Amy L Ahern |
| Abstract |
Behavioural and cognitive behavioural programmes are commonly used to assist with weight management, but there is considerable scope to improve their effectiveness, particularly in the longer term. Third-wave cognitive behaviour therapies (CBTs) have this potential and are increasingly used. This systematic review will assess the effect of third-wave CBTs for weight management on weight, psychological and physical health outcomes in adults with overweight or obesity. The systematic review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidance. We will include studies of any third-wave CBTs focusing on weight loss or weight maintenance for adults with a body mass index (BMI) ≥25kg/m2. Eligible study designs will be randomised control trials, non-randomised trials, prospective cohort and case series. Outcomes of interest will be body weight/BMI, psychological and physical health, and adherence. We will search the following databases from inception to 16 January 2018: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane database (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, AMED, ASSIA and Web of Science. The search strategy will be based on the concepts: (1) third-wave CBTs and (2) overweight, obesity or weight management. No restrictions will be applied. We will search reference lists of relevant reviews and included articles. Two independent reviewers will screen articles for eligibility using a two-stage process. Two independent reviewers will extract data, assess risk of bias using Risk of Bias 2.0, Risk of Bias in Non-randomised studies of Interventions or Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Exposures checklist and assess quality using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool. A random-effects network meta-analysis of outcomes, and sub-group analyses and meta-regression will be conducted, where data permit. If not appropriate, a narrative synthesis will be undertaken. Ethical approval is not required as no primary data will be collected. The completed systematic review will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at conferences and used to inform the development of a weight management programme. CRD42018088255. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 | 7 | 44% |
| United States | 2 | 13% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Spain | 1 | 6% |
| China | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 44% |
| Scientists | 5 | 31% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 81 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 17% |
| Unknown | 23 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 16 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 33 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 14 September 2019.
All research outputs
#4,565,067
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#8,209
of 25,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,843
of 341,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#190
of 569 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,597 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 341,886 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 569 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.