↓ Skip to main content

Can a core outcome set improve the quality of systematic reviews? – a survey of the Co-ordinating Editors of Cochrane review groups

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
32 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
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
Can a core outcome set improve the quality of systematic reviews? – a survey of the Co-ordinating Editors of Cochrane review groups
Published in
Trials, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-14-21
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jamie J Kirkham, Elizabeth Gargon, Mike Clarke, Paula R Williamson

Abstract

Missing outcome data or the inconsistent reporting of outcome data in clinical research can affect the quality of evidence within a systematic review. A potential solution is an agreed standardized set of outcomes known as a core outcome set (COS) to be measured in all studies for a specific condition. We investigated the amount of missing patient data for primary outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews, and surveyed the Co-ordinating Editors of Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) on issues related to the standardization of outcomes in their CRG's reviews. These groups are responsible for the more than 7,000 protocols and full versions of Cochrane Reviews that are currently available, and the several hundred new reviews published each year, presenting the world's largest collection of standardized systematic reviews in health care.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 3 5%
France 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 49 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 24%
Researcher 9 16%
Unspecified 7 13%
Student > Postgraduate 7 13%
Student > Master 6 11%
Other 13 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 65%
Unspecified 9 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 2 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 01 May 2013.
All research outputs
#574,641
of 12,705,500 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#155
of 3,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,100
of 248,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#12
of 306 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,705,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,146 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 248,775 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 306 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 96% of its contemporaries.