| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 5 | 38% |
| United States | 3 | 23% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 62% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 23% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 45 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 17% |
| Researcher | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Librarian | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 17% |
| Unknown | 17 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 43% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 16 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 18 November 2020.
All research outputs
#4,167,657
of 22,771,140 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#688
of 2,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,155
of 361,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#13
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,771,140 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 361,950 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.