↓ Skip to main content

International law’s effects on health and its social determinants: protocol for a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, January 2016
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
28 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
International law’s effects on health and its social determinants: protocol for a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis
Published in
Systematic Reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0238-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steven J. Hoffman, Matthew Hughsam, Harkanwal Randhawa, Lathika Sritharan, Gordon Guyatt, John N. Lavis, John-Arne Røttingen

Abstract

In recent years, there have been numerous calls for global institutions to develop and enforce new international laws. International laws are, however, often blunt instruments with many uncertain benefits, costs, risks of harm, and trade-offs. Thus, they are probably not always appropriate solutions to global health challenges. Given these uncertainties and international law's potential importance for improving global health, the paucity of synthesized evidence addressing whether international laws achieve their intended effects or whether they are superior in comparison to other approaches is problematic. Ten electronic bibliographic databases were searched using predefined search strategies, including MEDLINE, Global Health, CINAHL, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Dissertations and Theses, International Bibliography of Social Sciences, International Political Science Abstracts, Social Sciences Abstracts, Social Sciences Citation Index, PAIS International, and Worldwide Political Science Abstracts. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts using predefined inclusion criteria. Pairs of reviewers will then independently screen the full-text of articles for inclusion using predefined inclusion criteria and then independently extract data and assess risk of bias for included studies. Where feasible, results will be pooled through subgroup analyses, meta-analyses, and meta-regression techniques. The findings of this review will contribute to a better understanding of the expected benefits and possible harms of using international law to address different kinds of problems, thereby providing important evidence-informed guidance on when and how it can be effectively introduced and implemented by countries and global institutions. PROSPERO CRD42015019830.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Other 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 4 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 33%
Social Sciences 7 33%
Arts and Humanities 2 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Unknown 4 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 15 May 2016.
All research outputs
#816,112
of 13,201,578 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#159
of 1,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,527
of 216,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#5
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,201,578 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,115 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 216,804 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.