| Title |
Titles versus titles and abstracts for initial screening of articles for systematic reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Epidemiology, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/clep.s43118 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Farrah J Mateen, Jiwon Oh, Ana I Tergas, Neil H Bhayani, Biren B Kamdar |
| Abstract |
There is no consensus on whether screening titles alone or titles and abstracts together is the preferable strategy for inclusion of articles in a systematic review. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 165 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 12% |
| Researcher | 18 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 7% |
| Other | 40 | 23% |
| Unknown | 37 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 19% |
| Psychology | 15 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 43 | 25% |
| Unknown | 47 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 01 January 2015.
All research outputs
#3,595,801
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epidemiology
#158
of 793 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,141
of 206,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epidemiology
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 793 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 206,326 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.