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 |
Pinpointing needles in giant haystacks: use of text mining to reduce impractical screening workload in extremely large scoping reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Research Synthesis Methods, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/jrsm.1093 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ian Shemilt, Antonia Simon, Gareth J Hollands, Theresa M Marteau, David Ogilvie, Alison O'Mara-Eves, Michael P Kelly, James Thomas |
| Abstract |
In scoping reviews, boundaries of relevant evidence may be initially fuzzy, with refined conceptual understanding of interventions and their proposed mechanisms of action an intended output of the scoping process rather than its starting point. Electronic searches are therefore sensitive, often retrieving very large record sets that are impractical to screen in their entirety. This paper describes methods for applying and evaluating the use of text mining (TM) technologies to reduce impractical screening workload in reviews, using examples of two extremely large-scale scoping reviews of public health evidence (choice architecture (CA) and economic environment (EE)). Electronic searches retrieved >800,000 (CA) and >1 million (EE) records. TM technologies were used to prioritise records for manual screening. TM performance was measured prospectively. TM reduced manual screening workload by 90% (CA) and 88% (EE) compared with conventional screening (absolute reductions of ≈430 000 (CA) and ≈378 000 (EE) records). This study expands an emerging corpus of empirical evidence for the use of TM to expedite study selection in reviews. By reducing screening workload to manageable levels, TM made it possible to assemble and configure large, complex evidence bases that crossed research discipline boundaries. These methods are transferable to other scoping and systematic reviews incorporating conceptual development or explanatory dimensions. © 2013 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 | 15 | 71% |
| United States | 2 | 10% |
| Ireland | 1 | 5% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 2 | 10% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 67% |
| Scientists | 5 | 24% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 5% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 228 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 223 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 40 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 40 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 33 | 14% |
| Librarian | 17 | 7% |
| Professor | 13 | 6% |
| Other | 44 | 19% |
| Unknown | 41 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 40 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 20 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 8% |
| Psychology | 12 | 5% |
| Other | 46 | 20% |
| Unknown | 55 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 August 2019.
All research outputs
#1,795,477
of 24,036,420 outputs
Outputs from Research Synthesis Methods
#86
of 500 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,855
of 203,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Synthesis Methods
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,036,420 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 500 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 203,512 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.