↓ Skip to main content

Impact of adding a limitations section to abstracts of systematic reviews on readers’ interpretation: a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2014
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 (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Impact of adding a limitations section to abstracts of systematic reviews on readers’ interpretation: a randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-14-123
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amélie Yavchitz, Philippe Ravaud, Sally Hopewell, Gabriel Baron, Isabelle Boutron

Abstract

To allow an accurate evaluation of abstracts of systematic reviews, the PRISMA Statement recommends that the limitations of the evidence (e.g., risk of bias, publication bias, inconsistency, imprecision) should be described in the abstract. We aimed to evaluate the impact of adding such limitations sections on reader's interpretation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 5%
United States 1 5%
Unknown 19 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 19%
Unspecified 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 10%
Professor 2 10%
Other 8 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 67%
Unspecified 3 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 10%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Decision Sciences 1 5%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 23 November 2015.
All research outputs
#2,915,523
of 13,349,286 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#407
of 1,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,174
of 296,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#33
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,349,286 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,238 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 296,025 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.