| Title |
Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-7-10 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Beverley J Shea, Jeremy M Grimshaw, George A Wells, Maarten Boers, Neil Andersson, Candyce Hamel, Ashley C Porter, Peter Tugwell, David Moher, Lex M Bouter |
| Abstract |
Our objective was to develop an instrument to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews, building upon previous tools, empirical evidence and expert consensus. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 | 5 | 42% |
| Australia | 2 | 17% |
| Italy | 1 | 8% |
| Japan | 1 | 8% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 2 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 42% |
| Scientists | 5 | 42% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 2,799 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 19 | <1% |
| United States | 17 | <1% |
| Canada | 14 | <1% |
| Brazil | 10 | <1% |
| Spain | 6 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 5 | <1% |
| France | 5 | <1% |
| Colombia | 4 | <1% |
| South Africa | 4 | <1% |
| Other | 36 | 1% |
| Unknown | 2679 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 572 | 20% |
| Researcher | 355 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 337 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 260 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 174 | 6% |
| Other | 667 | 24% |
| Unknown | 434 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 998 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 296 | 11% |
| Psychology | 192 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 167 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 85 | 3% |
| Other | 477 | 17% |
| Unknown | 584 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 97. 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 25 March 2024.
All research outputs
#442,041
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#36
of 2,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#982
of 184,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,318 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 184,483 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them