| Title |
Reviewing the literature, how systematic is systematic?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11096-016-0288-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Katie MacLure, Vibhu Paudyal, Derek Stewart |
| Abstract |
Introduction Professor Archibald Cochrane, after whom the Cochrane Collaboration is named, was influential in promoting evidence-based clinical practice. He called for "relevant, valid research" to underpin all aspects of healthcare. Systematic reviews of the literature are regarded as a high quality source of cumulative evidence but it is unclear how truly systematic they, or other review articles, are or 'how systematic is systematic?' Today's evidence-based review industry is a burgeoning mix of specialist terminology, collaborations and foundations, databases, portals, handbooks, tools, criteria and training courses. Aim of the review This study aims to identify uses and types of reviews, key issues in planning, conducting, reporting and critiquing reviews, and factors which limit claims to be systematic. Method A rapid review of review articles published in IJCP. Results This rapid review identified 17 review articles published in IJCP between 2010 and 2015 inclusive. It explored the use of different types of review article, the variation and widely available range of guidelines, checklists and criteria which, through systematic application, aim to promote best practice. It also identified common pitfalls in endeavouring to conduct reviews of the literature systematically. Discussion Although a limited set of IJCP reviews were identified, there is clear evidence of the variation in adoption and application of systematic methods. The burgeoning evidence industry offers the tools and guidelines required to conduct systematic reviews, and other types of review, systematically. This rapid review was limited to the database of one journal over a period of 6 years. Although this review was conducted systematically, it is not presented as a systematic review. Conclusion As a research community we have yet to fully engage with readily available guidelines and tools which would help to avoid the common pitfalls. Therefore the question remains, of not just IJCP but potentially all published reviews, 'how systematic is systematic?' |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 4 | 80% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 60% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 137 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 11% |
| Researcher | 12 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 26 | 19% |
| Unknown | 34 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 13 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 12 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 37 | 27% |
| Unknown | 43 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 17 April 2016.
All research outputs
#7,408,624
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#442
of 1,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,546
of 302,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#7
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,129 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 302,389 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 70% of its contemporaries.