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 |
Celebrating methodological challenges and changes: reflecting on the emergence and importance of the role of qualitative evidence in Cochrane reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-2-84 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Karin Hannes, Andrew Booth, Janet Harris, Jane Noyes |
| Abstract |
Cochrane systematic reviews have proven to be beneficial for decision making processes, both on a practitioner and a policy level, and there are current initiatives to extend the types of evidence used by them, including qualitative research. In this article we outline the major achievements of the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group. Although the Group has encountered numerous challenges in dealing with the evolution of qualitative evidence synthesis, both outside and within the Cochrane Collaboration, it has successfully responded to the challenges posed in terms of incorporating qualitative evidence in systematic reviews. The Methods Group will continue to advocate for more flexible and inclusive approaches to evidence synthesis in order to meet the exciting challenges and opportunities presented by mixed methods systematic reviews and reviews of complex interventions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 | 5 | 56% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 22% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 3% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 103 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 24 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 14% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 25 | 23% |
| Unknown | 14 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 19 | 18% |
| Environmental Science | 6 | 6% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 12% |
| Unknown | 14 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 September 2014.
All research outputs
#7,161,279
of 25,311,095 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,304
of 2,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,958
of 220,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#18
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,311,095 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,218 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 220,007 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.