The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
The interpretation of systematic reviews with meta-analyses: an objective or subjective process?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, May 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-8-19 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ian Shrier, Jean-François Boivin, Robert W Platt, Russell J Steele, James M Brophy, Franco Carnevale, Mark J Eisenberg, Andrea Furlan, Ritsuko Kakuma, Mary Ellen Macdonald, Louise Pilote, Michel Rossignol |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 83% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 33% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| France | 2 | 2% |
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 113 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor > Associate Professor | 17 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 12% |
| Researcher | 15 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 39 | 32% |
| Unknown | 12 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 48 | 39% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 22 | 18% |
| Unknown | 16 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 20 June 2024.
All research outputs
#2,042,251
of 26,178,431 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#108
of 2,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,250
of 98,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,178,431 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,179 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 98,382 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 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