↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Checking reference lists to find additional studies for systematic reviews

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2011
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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
266 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
302 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 302 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 295 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 58 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 11%
Researcher 31 10%
Student > Bachelor 21 7%
Student > Postgraduate 19 6%
Other 63 21%
Unknown 78 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 75 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 10%
Social Sciences 21 7%
Psychology 18 6%
Computer Science 12 4%
Other 55 18%
Unknown 92 30%

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
#1,789,367
of 23,917,011 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,044
of 12,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,212
of 122,906 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#26
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,917,011 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 12,770 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.7. 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 122,906 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 77% of its contemporaries.