Title |
Optimizing search strategies to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2006
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-6-23 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Li Zhang, Isola Ajiferuke, Margaret Sampson |
Abstract |
The Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy (HSSS), which contains three phases, is widely used to identify Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE. Lefebvre and Clarke suggest that reviewers might consider using four revisions of the HSSS. The objective of this study is to validate these four revisions: combining the free text terms volunteer, crossover, versus, and the Medical Subject Heading CROSS-OVER STUDIES with the top two phases of the HSSS, respectively. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 5 | 8% |
Canada | 4 | 6% |
Australia | 1 | 2% |
Belgium | 1 | 2% |
Denmark | 1 | 2% |
Spain | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 52 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 14 | 22% |
Librarian | 9 | 14% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 14% |
Student > Master | 6 | 9% |
Other | 4 | 6% |
Other | 15 | 23% |
Unknown | 8 | 12% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 37% |
Social Sciences | 7 | 11% |
Computer Science | 6 | 9% |
Psychology | 4 | 6% |
Unspecified | 3 | 5% |
Other | 10 | 15% |
Unknown | 11 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 11 December 2014.
All research outputs
#14,174,202
of 22,716,996 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,374
of 2,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,131
of 66,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,716,996 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 66,031 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.