↓ Skip to main content

Rationale and protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis on reduced data gathering in people with delusions

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Rationale and protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis on reduced data gathering in people with delusions
Published in
Systematic Reviews, May 2014
DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-3-44
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Taylor, Paul Hutton, Robert Dudley

Abstract

The tendency to form conclusions based on limited evidence is known as the 'jumping to conclusions' (JTC) bias, and has been a much studied phenomena in individuals with psychosis. Previous reviews have supported the hypothesis that a JTC bias is particularly linked to the formation and maintenance of delusions. A new systematic review is required as a number of studies have since been published, and older reviews are limited by not systematically assessing methodological quality or the role of study design in influencing effect size estimates. This review aimed to investigate if there is an association between psychosis or delusions and JTC bias.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 37 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 11 28%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 9 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 January 2015.
All research outputs
#6,540,204
of 12,118,592 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#626
of 921 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,807
of 198,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#18
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,118,592 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 921 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 198,214 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 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.