| 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. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 3 | 30% |
| Singapore | 1 | 10% |
| Canada | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 70% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 309 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 | 302 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 58 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 33 | 11% |
| Researcher | 31 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 18 | 6% |
| Other | 58 | 19% |
| Unknown | 90 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 75 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 29 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 21 | 7% |
| Psychology | 18 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 11 | 4% |
| Other | 49 | 16% |
| Unknown | 106 | 34% |
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 19 July 2022.
All research outputs
#1,851,336
of 24,384,616 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,115
of 12,905 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,316
of 124,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#27
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,384,616 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 12,905 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.2. 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 124,005 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 111 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.