↓ Skip to main content

A protocol for a systematic review on the impact of unpublished studies and studies published in the gray literature in meta-analyses

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, May 2013
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 (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
A protocol for a systematic review on the impact of unpublished studies and studies published in the gray literature in meta-analyses
Published in
Systematic Reviews, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-2-24
Pubmed ID
Abstract

Meta-analyses are particularly vulnerable to the effects of publication bias. Despite methodologists' best efforts to locate all evidence for a given topic the most comprehensive searches are likely to miss unpublished studies and studies that are published in the gray literature only. If the results of the missing studies differ systematically from the published ones, a meta-analysis will be biased with an inaccurate assessment of the intervention's effects.As part of the OPEN project (http://www.open-project.eu) we will conduct a systematic review with the following objectives:▪ To assess the impact of studies that are not published or published in the gray literature on pooled effect estimates in meta-analyses (quantitative measure).▪ To assess whether the inclusion of unpublished studies or studies published in the gray literature leads to different conclusions in meta-analyses (qualitative measure).

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 4%
United Kingdom 2 3%
Belgium 1 1%
Chile 1 1%
Unknown 60 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 22 33%
Unknown 3 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 57%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Psychology 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 4 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 17 May 2013.
All research outputs
#597,124
of 3,684,317 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#116
of 260 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,835
of 85,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#12
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,684,317 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 260 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 85,950 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.