| Title |
A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Canadian Medical Association Journal, May 1997
|
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A R Jadad, D J Cook, G P Browman |
| Abstract |
Systematic reviews are becoming prominent tools to guide health care decisions. As the number of published systematic reviews increases, it is common to find more than 1 systematic review addressing the same or a very similar therapeutic question. Despite the promise for systematic reviews to resolve conflicting results of primary studies, conflicts among reviews are now emerging. Such conflicts produce difficulties for decision-makers (including clinicians, policy-makers, researchers and patients) who rely on these reviews to help them make choices among alternative interventions when experts and the results of trials disagree. The authors provide an adjunct decision tool--a decision algorithm--to help decision-makers select from among discordant reviews. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 States | 1 | 33% |
| Japan | 1 | 33% |
| Germany | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| Canada | 2 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 151 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 27 | 17% |
| Researcher | 26 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 12% |
| Professor | 13 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 38 | 23% |
| Unknown | 29 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 71 | 44% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 6% |
| Psychology | 10 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 24 | 15% |
| Unknown | 35 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 03 February 2024.
All research outputs
#3,056,616
of 25,299,129 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#3,202
of 9,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,822
of 30,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,299,129 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,404 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 30,484 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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 99% of its contemporaries.