↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Handsearching versus electronic searching to identify reports of randomized trials

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2007
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
204 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
214 Mendeley
citeulike
8 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
Handsearching versus electronic searching to identify reports of randomized trials
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.mr000001.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sally Hopewell, Mike J Clarke, Carol Lefebvre, Roberta W Scherer

Abstract

Systematic reviewers need to decide how best to reduce bias in identifying studies for their review. Even when journals are indexed in electronic databases, it can still be difficult to identify all relevant studies reported in these journals. Over 1700 journals have been or are being handsearched within The Cochrane Collaboration to identify reports of controlled trials in order to help address these problems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 214 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 2%
Canada 4 2%
Spain 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Other 3 1%
Unknown 193 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 21%
Researcher 26 12%
Librarian 25 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 11%
Student > Bachelor 15 7%
Other 39 18%
Unknown 41 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 83 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 14%
Social Sciences 11 5%
Psychology 9 4%
Computer Science 6 3%
Other 28 13%
Unknown 48 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 26 August 2020.
All research outputs
#2,619,177
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,197
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,356
of 87,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#19
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 92% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.