↓ Skip to main content

Compliance of systematic reviews in ophthalmology with the PRISMA statement

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Compliance of systematic reviews in ophthalmology with the PRISMA statement
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0450-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Seon-Young Lee, Harkiran Sagoo, Reem Farwana, Katharine Whitehurst, Alex Fowler, Riaz Agha

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are becoming increasingly important methods to summarize published research. Studies of ophthalmology may present additional challenges because of their potentially complex study designs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on topics in ophthalmology to determine compliance with the PRISMA guidelines. We assessed articles published between 2010 and 2015 in the five major relevant journals with the highest impact factors. The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched to identify systematic reviews published between January 2010 and December 2015 in the following 5 major ophthalmology journals: Progress in Retinal and Eye Research, Ophthalmology, Archives of Ophthalmology, American Journal of Ophthalmology, and Survey of Ophthalmology. The screening, identification, and scoring of articles were independently performed by two teams, and the results were submitted to statistical analysis to determine medians, ranges, and 95% CIs. A total of 115 articles were included. The median compliance was 15 out of 27 items (56%), the range was 5-26 (26-96%), and the inter-quartile range was 10 (37%). Compliance was highest in items related to the 'description of rationale' (item 3, 100%) and sequentially lower in 'the general interpretation of results' (item 26, 96%) and 'the inclusion of a structured summary in the abstract' (item 2, 90%). Compliance was poorest in the items 'indication of review protocol and registration' (item 5, 9%), 'specification of risk of biases that may affect the cumulative evidence' (item 15, 24%), and 'description of clear objectives in the introduction' (item 4, 26%). The reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ophthalmology should be significantly improved. While we recommend the use of the PRISMA criteria as a guideline before journal submission, additional research aimed at identifying potential barriers to compliance may be required to improve compliance with PRISMA guidelines.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 28%
Researcher 3 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 17%
Unspecified 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Other 3 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 39%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 22%
Unspecified 3 17%
Computer Science 1 6%
Energy 1 6%
Other 2 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 05 April 2018.
All research outputs
#7,692,950
of 12,761,472 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#780
of 1,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,432
of 385,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#83
of 144 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,761,472 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,150 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 385,072 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 144 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.