↓ Skip to main content

Automatic Evidence Retrieval for Systematic Reviews

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Internet Research, October 2014
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 (94th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
38 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 5%
Spain 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Finland 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 36 82%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Professor 4 9%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 13 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 11 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 20%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 9%
Unspecified 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Other 12 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 15 March 2018.
All research outputs
#571,869
of 12,346,717 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Internet Research
#608
of 2,649 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,479
of 215,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Internet Research
#11
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,346,717 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,649 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 215,962 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 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 64% of its contemporaries.