The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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.
| Title |
Checking reference lists to find additional studies for systematic reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.mr000026.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tanya Horsley, Orvie Dingwall, Margaret Sampson |
| Abstract |
Checking reference lists to identify relevant studies for systematic reviews is frequently recommended by systematic review manuals and is often undertaken by review authors. To date, no systematic review has explicitly examined the effectiveness of checking reference lists as a method to supplement electronic searching. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 9% |
| Canada | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 9 | 82% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 73% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 18% |
| Scientists | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 363 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Egypt | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 356 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 62 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 40 | 11% |
| Researcher | 31 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 20 | 6% |
| Other | 65 | 18% |
| Unknown | 119 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 79 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 34 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 24 | 7% |
| Psychology | 19 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 11 | 3% |
| Other | 61 | 17% |
| Unknown | 135 | 37% |
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 05 June 2024.
All research outputs
#1,991,533
of 26,080,956 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,105
of 13,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,939
of 133,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#25
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,080,956 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,186 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 133,945 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.