| Title |
Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zachary Munn, Micah D. J. Peters, Cindy Stern, Catalin Tufanaru, Alexa McArthur, Edoardo Aromataris |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,001 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 174 | 17% |
| United States | 76 | 8% |
| Australia | 76 | 8% |
| Canada | 60 | 6% |
| Spain | 28 | 3% |
| Saudi Arabia | 27 | 3% |
| Ireland | 25 | 2% |
| South Africa | 15 | 1% |
| Japan | 12 | 1% |
| Other | 166 | 17% |
| Unknown | 342 | 34% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 498 | 50% |
| Scientists | 340 | 34% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 125 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 35 | 3% |
| Unknown | 3 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8,835 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 8835 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 1151 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1137 | 13% |
| Researcher | 791 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 643 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 480 | 5% |
| Other | 1527 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3106 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1124 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1032 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 737 | 8% |
| Psychology | 518 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 259 | 3% |
| Other | 1736 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3429 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 725. 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 27 March 2024.
All research outputs
#28,755
of 25,930,027 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#2
of 2,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#502
of 449,460 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,930,027 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,339 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 449,460 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.