↓ Skip to main content

Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 1—purpose, eligibility, search and data extraction

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#33 of 2,242)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
213 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
114 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
175 Mendeley
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
Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 1—purpose, eligibility, search and data extraction
Published in
Systematic Reviews, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0617-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carole Lunny, Sue E. Brennan, Steve McDonald, Joanne E. McKenzie

Abstract

Overviews of systematic reviews attempt to systematically retrieve and summarise the results of multiple systematic reviews. Methods for conducting, interpreting and reporting overviews are in their infancy. To date, there has been no evidence map of the methods used in overviews, thus making it difficult to determine the gaps and priorities for methods research. Our objectives were to develop and populate a comprehensive framework of methods for conducting, interpreting and reporting overviews (stage I) and to create an evidence map by mapping studies that have evaluated overview methods to the framework (stage II). We searched methods collections (e.g. Cochrane Methodology Register, Meth4ReSyn library, AHRQ Effective Health Care Program) to identify eligible studies for both stages of this research. In stage I, cross-sectional studies, guidance documents and commentaries that described methods proposed for, or used in, overviews were used to develop and populate the framework of methods. Drafts and multiple iterations of the framework were discussed and refined by all authors. In stage II, we identified and described studies evaluating overview methods and mapped these evaluations to the framework. In this paper, we present results for the four initial steps of conducting an overview: (a) specification of the purpose, objectives and scope, (b) specification of the eligibility criteria, (c) search methods and (d) data extraction. Twenty-nine studies mentioned or described methods relevant to one or more of these steps. In the developed framework, identified methods and approaches were grouped according to the steps an overview author would need to undertake. Fifteen studies evaluated identified methods, all of which mapped to the search methods step. These studies either reported the development and evaluation of a new search filter to retrieve systematic reviews or compared the performance of multiple filters. Gaps in the evaluation of methods were found for the majority of steps in the framework. More empirical studies are needed to evaluate the methods outlined and provide a comprehensive evidence map. The framework is useful for planning these evaluations and for planning methods required to deal with challenges that arise when conducting an overview.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 213 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 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 175 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 13%
Researcher 21 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 9%
Professor 9 5%
Other 35 20%
Unknown 48 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 9%
Social Sciences 10 6%
Psychology 7 4%
Computer Science 6 3%
Other 29 17%
Unknown 60 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 123. 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 01 February 2022.
All research outputs
#342,792
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#33
of 2,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,555
of 446,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#4
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,242 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 98% 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 446,948 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 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 95% of its contemporaries.