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 |
Is the coverage of google scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-13-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jean-François Gehanno, Laetitia Rollin, Stefan Darmoni |
| Abstract |
In searches for clinical trials and systematic reviews, it is said that Google Scholar (GS) should never be used in isolation, but in addition to PubMed, Cochrane, and other trusted sources of information. We therefore performed a study to assess the coverage of GS specifically for the studies included in systematic reviews and evaluate if GS was sensitive enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 168 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 | 30 | 18% |
| Spain | 19 | 11% |
| United States | 18 | 11% |
| Canada | 14 | 8% |
| Australia | 8 | 5% |
| Sweden | 5 | 3% |
| Japan | 3 | 2% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 2 | 1% |
| India | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 20 | 12% |
| Unknown | 47 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 96 | 57% |
| Scientists | 37 | 22% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 22 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 13 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 328 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 9 | 3% |
| United States | 7 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 2% |
| Sweden | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 2 | <1% |
| Denmark | 2 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Cuba | 1 | <1% |
| Uruguay | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 8 | 2% |
| Unknown | 290 | 88% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Librarian | 50 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 49 | 15% |
| Researcher | 40 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 38 | 12% |
| Other | 22 | 7% |
| Other | 79 | 24% |
| Unknown | 50 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 68 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 51 | 16% |
| Computer Science | 35 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 24 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 17 | 5% |
| Other | 76 | 23% |
| Unknown | 57 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 155. 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 July 2023.
All research outputs
#261,055
of 25,204,906 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#6
of 2,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,783
of 295,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#2
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,204,906 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,133 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 295,646 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 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 97% of its contemporaries.