↓ Skip to main content

When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist

Overview of attention for article published in British Medical Journal, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
368 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
13 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
112 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
213 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
When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist
Published in
British Medical Journal, July 2016
DOI 10.1136/bmj.i3507
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Garner, Sally Hopewell, Jackie Chandler, Harriet MacLehose, Holger J Schünemann, Elie A Akl, Joseph Beyene, Stephanie Chang, Rachel Churchill, Karin Dearness, Gordon Guyatt, Carol Lefebvre, Beth Liles, Rachel Marshall, Laura Martínez García, Chris Mavergames, Mona Nasser, Amir Qaseem, Margaret Sampson, Karla Soares-Weiser, Yemisi Takwoingi, Lehana Thabane, Marialena Trivella, Peter Tugwell, Emma Welsh, Ed C Wilson

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 368 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 213 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
Canada 3 1%
Italy 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 204 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 16%
Researcher 31 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 14%
Librarian 26 12%
Student > Bachelor 15 7%
Other 58 27%
Unknown 20 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 96 45%
Psychology 19 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 6%
Social Sciences 12 6%
Computer Science 10 5%
Other 24 11%
Unknown 39 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 239. 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 22 September 2020.
All research outputs
#73,437
of 15,966,839 outputs
Outputs from British Medical Journal
#1,345
of 49,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,338
of 266,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Medical Journal
#23
of 835 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,966,839 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 49,695 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 266,798 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 835 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 97% of its contemporaries.