↓ Skip to main content

Systematic review of the use of process evaluations in knowledge translation research

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, November 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
50 tweeters
Title
Systematic review of the use of process evaluations in knowledge translation research
Published in
Systematic Reviews, November 2019
DOI 10.1186/s13643-019-1161-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shannon D. Scott, Thomas Rotter, Rachel Flynn, Hannah M. Brooks, Tabatha Plesuk, Katherine H. Bannar-Martin, Thane Chambers, Lisa Hartling

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 03 December 2019.
All research outputs
#534,041
of 13,999,813 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#104
of 1,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,962
of 273,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#13
of 226 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,999,813 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,218 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 273,312 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 226 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.