↓ Skip to main content

The interpretation of systematic reviews with meta-analyses: an objective or subjective process?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, May 2008
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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 Mendeley
citeulike
8 CiteULike
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

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 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 114 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 6%
Other 41 33%
Unknown 11 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 40%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 11%
Social Sciences 9 7%
Computer Science 8 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 15 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 05 June 2020.
All research outputs
#1,887,740
of 24,208,207 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#100
of 2,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,670
of 84,765 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,208,207 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 2,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. 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 84,765 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 8 of them.