↓ Skip to main content

Interventions to improve the use of systematic reviews in decision-making by health system managers, policy makers and clinicians

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
83 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
371 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Title
Interventions to improve the use of systematic reviews in decision-making by health system managers, policy makers and clinicians
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009401.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lakshmi Murthy, Sasha Shepperd, Mike J Clarke, Sarah E Garner, John N Lavis, Laure Perrier, Nia W Roberts, Sharon E Straus

Abstract

Systematic reviews provide a transparent and robust summary of existing research. However, health system managers, national and local policy makers and healthcare professionals can face several obstacles when attempting to utilise this evidence. These include constraints operating within the health system, dealing with a large volume of research evidence and difficulties in adapting evidence from systematic reviews so that it is locally relevant. In an attempt to increase the use of systematic review evidence in decision-making a number of interventions have been developed. These include summaries of systematic review evidence that are designed to improve the accessibility of the findings of systematic reviews (often referred to as information products) and changes to organisational structures, such as employing specialist groups to synthesise the evidence to inform local decision-making.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 371 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 371 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 1 <1%
Student > Postgraduate 1 <1%
Unknown 369 99%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 1 <1%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 <1%
Unknown 369 99%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 06 January 2015.
All research outputs
#1,765,256
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,996
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,044
of 254,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#221
of 443 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. 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 254,353 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 443 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 50% of its contemporaries.