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 |
Considerations from the risk of bias perspective for updating Cochrane reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-015-0122-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alain D. Mayhew, Monisha Kabir, Mohammed T. Ansari |
| Abstract |
Authors of Cochrane reviews are expected to update their reviews every 2 years. The updating process helps to ensure that reviews are current and include recent evidence. However, the updating process is time-consuming for authors, particularly when Cochrane methods evolve and authors are required to revisit some of the originally included studies.The Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool is a mandatory component of Cochrane reviews, providing an assessment of the potential biases of included studies. The tool has been modified most recently in 2011, and the expectation is that new versions will continue to be produced and utilised in all Cochrane reviews. In this commentary we discuss, in the context of updating scenarios that are likely to be encountered, the potential options systematic review authors may have recourse to when the Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool has been modified between the original review and its update. We recommend that authors who are updating reviews should revise their original assessments of included studies using the most recent version of the risk of bias tool. Despite the increased workload, use of the most recent version of the tool facilitates consistency of methods and reporting both across and within reviews, and ensures currency to the methodological rigour. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 | 4 | 29% |
| Italy | 1 | 7% |
| Argentina | 1 | 7% |
| Canada | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 86% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 14% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 16 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 17% |
| Researcher | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 61% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 29 October 2015.
All research outputs
#3,801,655
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#717
of 2,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,949
of 279,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#8
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 279,322 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 74% of its contemporaries.