↓ Skip to main content

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 1,683)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
policy
4 policy sources
twitter
319 tweeters
facebook
7 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9660 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7958 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
Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement
Published in
Systematic Reviews, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Moher, Larissa Shamseer, Mike Clarke, Davina Ghersi, Alessandro Liberati, Mark Petticrew, Paul Shekelle, Lesley A Stewart

Abstract

Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 319 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 7,958 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 18 <1%
United States 13 <1%
Spain 7 <1%
Portugal 6 <1%
Brazil 6 <1%
Australia 6 <1%
Netherlands 5 <1%
Canada 4 <1%
Germany 3 <1%
Other 32 <1%
Unknown 7858 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 1543 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1173 15%
Researcher 846 11%
Student > Bachelor 841 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 589 7%
Other 1582 20%
Unknown 1384 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2086 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 861 11%
Psychology 637 8%
Social Sciences 394 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 292 4%
Other 1801 23%
Unknown 1887 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 253. 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 August 2021.
All research outputs
#85,131
of 18,792,779 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#8
of 1,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,292
of 321,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#2
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,792,779 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,683 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 321,901 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 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 99% of its contemporaries.