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 |
Exploring issues in the conduct of website searching and other online sources for systematic reviews: how can we be systematic?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-016-0371-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claire Stansfield, Kelly Dickson, Mukdarut Bangpan |
| Abstract |
Websites and online resources outside academic bibliographic databases can be significant sources for identifying literature, though there are challenges in searching and managing the results. These are pertinent to systematic reviews that are underpinned by principles of transparency, accountability and reproducibility. We consider how the conduct of searching these resources can be compatible with the principles of a systematic search. We present an approach to address some of the challenges. This is particularly relevant when websites are relied upon to identify important literature for a review. We recommend considering the process as three stages and having a considered rationale and sufficient recordkeeping at each stage that balances transparency with practicality of purpose. Advances in technology and recommendations for website providers are briefly discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 69 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 | 23 | 33% |
| Canada | 7 | 10% |
| Argentina | 5 | 7% |
| Spain | 4 | 6% |
| United States | 3 | 4% |
| Australia | 2 | 3% |
| France | 2 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 3% |
| Colombia | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 17 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 34 | 49% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 16 | 23% |
| Scientists | 13 | 19% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 6 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 216 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 3 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 212 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Librarian | 35 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 28 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 9% |
| Researcher | 12 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 4% |
| Other | 38 | 18% |
| Unknown | 74 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 24 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 12 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 5% |
| Psychology | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 43 | 20% |
| Unknown | 81 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 88. 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 16 June 2020.
All research outputs
#485,356
of 25,392,582 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#55
of 2,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,111
of 312,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#4
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,392,582 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 2,229 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 312,034 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 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 92% of its contemporaries.