↓ Skip to main content

Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up?

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS Medicine, September 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
blogs
15 blogs
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
166 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
526 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
572 Mendeley
citeulike
9 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
Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up?
Published in
PLOS Medicine, September 2010
DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hilda Bastian, Paul Glasziou, Iain Chalmers

Abstract

When Archie Cochrane reproached the medical profession for not having critical summaries of all randomised controlled trials, about 14 reports of trials were being published per day. There are now 75 trials, and 11 systematic reviews of trials, per day and a plateau in growth has not yet been reached. Although trials, reviews, and health technology assessments have undoubtedly had major impacts, the staple of medical literature synthesis remains the non-systematic narrative review. Only a small minority of trial reports are being analysed in up-to-date systematic reviews. Given the constraints, Archie Cochrane's vision will not be achieved without some serious changes in course. To meet the needs of patients, clinicians, and policymakers, unnecessary trials need to be reduced, and systematic reviews need to be prioritised. Streamlining and innovation in methods of systematic reviewing are necessary to enable valid answers to be found for most patient questions. Finally, clinicians and patients require open access to these important resources.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 166 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 572 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 14 2%
United Kingdom 12 2%
Spain 7 1%
Canada 6 1%
Denmark 4 <1%
France 4 <1%
Australia 3 <1%
Brazil 3 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Other 4 <1%
Unknown 513 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 98 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 89 16%
Researcher 84 15%
Librarian 44 8%
Other 39 7%
Other 176 31%
Unknown 42 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 263 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 7%
Social Sciences 35 6%
Computer Science 34 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 5%
Other 102 18%
Unknown 69 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 260. 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 20 February 2020.
All research outputs
#54,239
of 14,537,018 outputs
Outputs from PLOS Medicine
#147
of 3,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194
of 88,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS Medicine
#2
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,537,018 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,256 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 63.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 88,692 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 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 96% of its contemporaries.