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 |
Quality of reporting of systematic reviews published in “evidence-based” Chinese journals
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-3-58 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jin-long Li, Long Ge, Ji-chun Ma, Qiao-ling Zeng, Lu Yao, Ni An, Jie-xian Ding, Yu-hong Gan, Jin-hui Tian |
| Abstract |
The number of systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) has increased dramatically in China over the past decades. However, evaluation of quality of reporting of systematic reviews published has not been undertaken. The objective of this study is to evaluate the quality of reporting of SRs/MAs assessing efficacy and/or harms of clinical interventions published in "evidence-based" Chinese journals. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 | 3 | 27% |
| Canada | 2 | 18% |
| Spain | 1 | 9% |
| United States | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 55% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 18% |
| Scientists | 2 | 18% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 6% |
| Sweden | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 28 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 13% |
| Librarian | 3 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 19% |
| Unknown | 6 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 58% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 17 January 2016.
All research outputs
#3,618,415
of 22,757,090 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#685
of 1,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,327
of 228,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#9
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,090 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,990 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 228,688 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.