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 |
Automatic Evidence Retrieval for Systematic Reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Internet Research, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.2196/jmir.3369 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Miew Keen Choong, Filippo Galgani, Adam G Dunn, Guy Tsafnat |
| Abstract |
Snowballing involves recursively pursuing relevant references cited in the retrieved literature and adding them to the search results. Snowballing is an alternative approach to discover additional evidence that was not retrieved through conventional search. Snowballing's effectiveness makes it best practice in systematic reviews despite being time-consuming and tedious. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 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 | 16 | 41% |
| Australia | 6 | 15% |
| United States | 3 | 8% |
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 25 | 64% |
| Scientists | 8 | 21% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 15% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 107 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 10% |
| Researcher | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 20 | 18% |
| Unknown | 21 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 19% |
| Computer Science | 15 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 9 | 8% |
| Engineering | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 24 | 21% |
| Unknown | 26 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 12 April 2019.
All research outputs
#1,771,658
of 25,393,528 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Internet Research
#1,448
of 7,872 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,312
of 265,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Internet Research
#20
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,393,528 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,872 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 265,694 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 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 68% of its contemporaries.