↓ Skip to main content

How should systematic reviewers handle conference abstracts? A view from the trenches

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 (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
60 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
Title
How should systematic reviewers handle conference abstracts? A view from the trenches
Published in
Systematic Reviews, November 2019
DOI 10.1186/s13643-019-1188-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roberta W. Scherer, Ian J. Saldanha

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 60 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 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 4 57%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 14%
Other 1 14%
Student > Master 1 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 57%
Psychology 1 14%
Unknown 2 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. 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 18 November 2019.
All research outputs
#460,293
of 13,917,556 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#81
of 1,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,298
of 238,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#8
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,917,556 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 1,200 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 93% 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 238,192 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 208 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 96% of its contemporaries.