↓ Skip to main content

Selecting and implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar overviews

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, July 2017
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
106 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
93 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 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
Selecting and implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar overviews
Published in
Systematic Reviews, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0534-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alex Pollock, Pauline Campbell, Ginny Brunton, Harriet Hunt, Lise Estcourt

Abstract

Overviews of systematic reviews are an increasingly popular method of evidence synthesis; there is a lack of clear guidance for completing overviews and a number of methodological challenges. At the UK Cochrane Symposium 2016, methodological challenges of five overviews were explored. Using data from these five overviews, practical implications to support methodological decision making of authors writing protocols for future overviews are proposed. Methods, and their justification, from the five exemplar overviews were tabulated and compared with areas of debate identified within current literature. Key methodological challenges and implications for development of overview protocols were generated and synthesised into a list, discussed and refined until there was consensus. Methodological features of three Cochrane overviews, one overview of diagnostic test accuracy and one mixed methods overview have been summarised. Methods of selection of reviews and data extraction were similar. Either the AMSTAR or ROBIS tool was used to assess quality of included reviews. The GRADE approach was most commonly used to assess quality of evidence within the reviews. Eight key methodological challenges were identified from the exemplar overviews. There was good agreement between our findings and emerging areas of debate within a recent published synthesis. Implications for development of protocols for future overviews were identified. Overviews are a relatively new methodological innovation, and there are currently substantial variations in the methodological approaches used within different overviews. There are considerable methodological challenges for which optimal solutions are not necessarily yet known. Lessons learnt from five exemplar overviews highlight a number of methodological decisions which may be beneficial to consider during the development of an overview protocol.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 106 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 124 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 18%
Researcher 18 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 27 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 12%
Computer Science 6 5%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Psychology 5 4%
Other 21 17%
Unknown 36 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 66. 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 09 May 2019.
All research outputs
#655,927
of 25,711,194 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#77
of 2,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,565
of 326,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#4
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,194 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,247 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 326,280 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 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 92% of its contemporaries.