↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane methods - twenty years experience in developing systematic review methods

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, September 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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
16 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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
Cochrane methods - twenty years experience in developing systematic review methods
Published in
Systematic Reviews, September 2013
DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-2-76
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jackie Chandler, Sally Hopewell

Abstract

This year, The Cochrane Collaboration reached its 20th anniversary. It has played a pivotal role in the scientific development of systematic reviewing and in the development of review methods to synthesize research evidence, primarily from randomized trials, to answer questions about the effects of healthcare interventions. We introduce a series of articles, which form this special issue describing the development of systematic review methods within The Cochrane Collaboration. We also discuss the impact of Cochrane Review methods, and acknowledge the breadth and depth of methods development within The Cochrane Collaboration as part of the wider context of evidence synthesis. We conclude by considering the future development of methods for Cochrane Reviews.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Spain 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 75 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 23%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Researcher 7 9%
Other 23 29%
Unknown 7 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 44%
Social Sciences 9 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Psychology 6 8%
Computer Science 4 5%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 10 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 18 April 2014.
All research outputs
#677,140
of 11,763,181 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#140
of 879 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,022
of 150,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#2
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,763,181 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 879 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. 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 150,279 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 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 90% of its contemporaries.