| 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
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 2 | 40% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 210 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 | 189 | 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 | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 39 | 19% |
| Unknown | 38 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 83 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 28 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 5% |
| Psychology | 9 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 28 | 13% |
| Unknown | 45 | 21% |
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.