↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Grey literature in meta‐analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
448 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
Grey literature in meta‐analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.mr000010.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sally Hopewell, Steve McDonald, Mike J Clarke, Matthias Egger

Abstract

The inclusion of grey literature (i.e. literature that has not been formally published) in systematic reviews may help to overcome some of the problems of publication bias, which can arise due to the selective availability of data.

Timeline
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 448 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 2%
United Kingdom 6 1%
Netherlands 3 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
Ireland 2 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Other 5 1%
Unknown 417 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 98 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 48 11%
Researcher 47 10%
Other 30 7%
Student > Bachelor 29 6%
Other 108 24%
Unknown 88 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 157 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 48 11%
Social Sciences 27 6%
Psychology 26 6%
Computer Science 13 3%
Other 68 15%
Unknown 109 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 29 October 2020.
All research outputs
#1,190,689
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,481
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,222
of 87,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 87,943 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.