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 |
Quality ratings of reviews in overviews: a comparison of reviews with and without dual (co-)authorship
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-018-0722-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dawid Pieper, Andreas Waltering, Jakob Holstiege, Roland Brian Büchter |
| Abstract |
Previous research shows that many authors of Cochrane overviews were also involved in some of the included systematic reviews (SRs). This type of dual (co-)authorship (DCA) may be a conflict of interest and a potential source of bias. Our objectives were to (1) additionally investigate DCA in non-Cochrane overviews; (2) investigate whether there is an association between DCA and quality assessments of SRs in Cochrane and non-Cochrane overviews. We selected a sample of Cochrane (n = 20) and non-Cochrane (n = 78) overviews for analysis. We extracted data on the number of reviews affected by DCA and whether quality assessment of included reviews was conducted independently. Differences in mean quality scores between SRs with and without DCA were calculated in each overview. These differences were standardized (using the standardized mean difference (SMD)) and meta-analyzed using a random effects model. Forty out of 78 non-Cochrane overviews (51%) and 18 out of 20 Cochrane overviews (90%) had included at least one SR with DCA. For Cochrane overviews, a median of 5 [interquartile range (IQR) 2.5 to 7] SRs were affected by DCA (median of included reviews 10). For non-Cochrane overviews a median of 1 [IQR 0 to 2] of the included SRs were affected (median of included reviews 14). The meta-analysis showed a SMD of 0.58 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.90) indicating higher quality scores in reviews with overlapping authors. The test for subgroup differences shows no evidence of a difference between Cochrane (SMD 0.44; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.81) and non-Cochrane overviews (SMD 0.62; 95% CI 0.06 to 1.17). Many authors of overviews also often have an authorship on one or more of the underlying reviews. Our analysis shows that, on average, authors of overviews give higher quality ratings to SRs in which they were involved themselves than to other SRs. Conflict of interest is one explanation, but there are several others such as reviewer expertise. Independent and blinded reassessments of the reviews would provide more robust evidence on potential bias arising from DCA. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 49 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 | 9 | 18% |
| Australia | 4 | 8% |
| United States | 4 | 8% |
| Ireland | 3 | 6% |
| Canada | 2 | 4% |
| Belgium | 1 | 2% |
| India | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Sweden | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 19 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 26 | 53% |
| Scientists | 15 | 31% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 14% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 26% |
| Unknown | 8 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 17% |
| Psychology | 4 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 17% |
| Unknown | 9 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 June 2018.
All research outputs
#1,079,277
of 24,920,664 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#146
of 2,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,842
of 332,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#5
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,920,664 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 2,172 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 332,208 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 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.