| Title |
How explicable are differences between reviews that appear to address a similar research question? A review of reviews of physical activity interventions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-1-37 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jenny Woodman, James Thomas, Kelly Dickson |
| Abstract |
Systematic reviews are promoted as being important to inform decision-making. However, when presented with a set of reviews in a complex area, how easy is it to understand how and why they may differ from one another? |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 | 31% |
| Spain | 4 | 31% |
| Canada | 2 | 15% |
| Australia | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 2 | 15% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 38% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 38% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 15% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 39 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 20% |
| Researcher | 8 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 5% |
| Professor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 6 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 25% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 23% |
| Sports and Recreations | 5 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 10% |
| Psychology | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 15% |
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 11 April 2020.
All research outputs
#4,315,953
of 23,573,357 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#885
of 2,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,877
of 170,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,573,357 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 2,048 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 170,363 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.