| Title |
Living cumulative network meta-analysis to reduce waste in research: A paradigmatic shift for systematic reviews?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-016-0596-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Per Olav Vandvik, Romina Brignardello-Petersen, Gordon H. Guyatt |
| Abstract |
In a recent research article in BMC Medicine, Créquit and colleagues demonstrate how published systematic reviews in lung cancer provide a fragmented, out-of-date picture of the evidence for all treatments. The results and conclusions drawn from this study, based on cumulative network meta-analyses (NMA) of evidence from randomized clinical trials over time, are quite compelling. The inherent waste of research resulting from incomplete evidence synthesis has wide-reaching implications for a range of target groups including developers of systematic reviews and guidelines and their end-users, health care professionals and patients at the point of care. Building on emerging concepts for living systematic reviews and NMA, the authors propose "living cumulative NMA" as a potential solution and paradigmatic shift. Here we describe how recent innovations within authoring, dissemination, and updating of systematic reviews and trustworthy guidelines may greatly facilitate the production of living NMA. Some additional challenges need to be solved for NMA in general, and for living cumulative NMA in particular, before a paradigmatic shift for systematic reviews can become reality.Please see related research article: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-016-0555-0. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 49 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 | 14 | 29% |
| Australia | 5 | 10% |
| Canada | 4 | 8% |
| United States | 2 | 4% |
| Mexico | 1 | 2% |
| Slovenia | 1 | 2% |
| Greece | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Qatar | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 14 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 23 | 47% |
| Scientists | 20 | 41% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 12% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 78 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 12% |
| Librarian | 9 | 11% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Other | 15 | 18% |
| Unknown | 14 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 37% |
| Psychology | 5 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Engineering | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 18% |
| Unknown | 21 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 27 July 2022.
All research outputs
#1,401,652
of 25,402,889 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#989
of 4,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,651
of 315,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#14
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,402,889 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,012 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 315,380 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 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 72% of its contemporaries.