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 |
Missing the forest (plot) for the trees? A critique of the systematic review in tobacco control
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-10-34 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laura J Rosen, Michal Ben Noach, Elliot Rosenberg |
| Abstract |
The systematic review (SR) lies at the core of evidence-based medicine. While it may appear that the SR provides a reliable summary of existing evidence, standards of SR conduct differ. The objective of this research was to examine systematic review (SR) methods used by the Cochrane Collaboration ("Cochrane") and the Task Force on Community Preventive Services ("the Guide") for evaluation of effectiveness of tobacco control interventions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 40 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 17% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 19% |
| Unknown | 7 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 36% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 8 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 November 2012.
All research outputs
#18,320,524
of 22,685,926 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,726
of 2,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,819
of 95,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#10
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,685,926 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,001 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 95,165 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.