↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane plain language summaries are highly heterogeneous with low adherence to the standards

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
42 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
Cochrane plain language summaries are highly heterogeneous with low adherence to the standards
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0162-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antonia Jelicic Kadic, Mahir Fidahic, Milan Vujcic, Frano Saric, Ivana Propadalo, Ivana Marelja, Svjetlana Dosenovic, Livia Puljak

Abstract

The aim of this study was to analyze whether Cochrane plain language summaries (PLSs) adhere to the Standards for the reporting of Plain Language Summaries in new Cochrane Intervention Reviews (PLEACS). A systematic analysis of adherence to the measurable PLEACS items was performed for Cochrane PLSs published from March 2013 to the end of January 2015. Duplicate independent data extraction was performed. An adherence score was calculated for each PLS and for the Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) that published them. Of the 1738 analyzed PLSs, not a single one adhered fully to the measured PLEACS items. The highest adherence was found for absence of details of the search strategy (99 % adherence), and the lowest adherence for an item mandating to address quality according to the GRADE system (0.7 % adherence). Overall adherence percentage of PLSs reporting reviews with included studies was 57 %. Different CRGs had a wide range of adherence scores. Cochrane plain language summaries are highly heterogeneous with a low adherence to the PLEACS standards. Therefore, there is much room for improving the content and consistency of the PLS. A standardization of PLSs is necessary to ensure delivery of proper and consistent information for consumers.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 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 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 33%
Researcher 2 17%
Student > Bachelor 2 17%
Librarian 1 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Other 2 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 33%
Linguistics 2 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 17%
Psychology 1 8%
Decision Sciences 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 1 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 14 February 2017.
All research outputs
#777,735
of 14,571,674 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#111
of 1,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,811
of 265,896 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,571,674 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 265,896 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 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them