↓ Skip to main content

Optimizing search strategies to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
connotea
3 Connotea
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 6 13%
Canada 4 9%
Australia 1 2%
Belgium 1 2%
Denmark 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 32 70%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 20%
Librarian 8 17%
Student > Master 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Other 10 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 50%
Social Sciences 7 15%
Computer Science 6 13%
Psychology 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 1 2%

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
#1,991,831
of 4,610,210 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#295
of 557 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,565
of 93,708 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#16
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,610,210 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 55th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 557 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 93,708 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.