| Title |
A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/jmdh.s43952 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zainab Samaan, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Daisy Kosa, Victoria Borg Debono, Rejane Dillenburg, Shiyuan Zhang, Vincent Fruci, Brittany Dennis, Monica Bawor, Lehana Thabane |
| Abstract |
Reporting guidelines have been available for the past 17 years since the inception of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement in 1996. These guidelines were developed to improve the quality of reporting of studies in medical literature. Despite the widespread availability of these guidelines, the quality of reporting of medical literature remained suboptimal. In this study, we assess the current adherence practice to reporting guidelines; determine key factors associated with better adherence to these guidelines; and provide recommendations to enhance adherence to reporting guidelines for future studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 111 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 14% |
| Researcher | 15 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 25 | 22% |
| Unknown | 22 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 34% |
| Psychology | 11 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 15% |
| Unknown | 26 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 May 2013.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#765
of 1,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,401
of 204,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,001 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 204,329 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.