Skip to main content

Table 1 Quality assessment of the included studies by the AXIS tool

From: What are the variables associated with Altmetric scores?

Articles Introduction Methods Results Discussion Other
  1 2 3 4 5 6 8* 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19
Amath et al. [15] Y Y C1 Y N C2 Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y
Araujo et al. [11] Y Y C1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Araujo et al. [16] Y Y C1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Asaad et al. [17] Y C3 C1 Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Ayoub et al. [26] Y C3 C1 Y N C2 Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y
Barakat et al. [18] N Y C1 Y N C2 Y N N Y Y Y N N Y
Barbic et al. [19] Y C3 C1 Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y C4
Bornmann et al. [20] Y Y C1 Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y
Chen et al. [21] Y C3 C1 Y N C2 Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y
Costas et al. [22] Y C3 C1 Y Y Y C5 N N Y Y Y Y Y C4
Dagar et al. [23] Y C3 C1 Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Didegah et al. [25] Y C3 C1 Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y C4
Haneef et al. [24] Y Y C1 Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Knight [27] Y C3 C1 Y Y C2 Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y
Kunze et al. [29] Y C3 C1 Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y C4
Lamb et al. [30] Y C3 C1 Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y
Richardson et al. [28] Y C3 C1 Y N C2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Richardson et al. [31] Y C3 C1 Y N C2 Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y
Rosenkrantz et al. [32] Y C3 C1 Y N C2 Y N N Y Y Y Y Y C4
  1. Items 1. Were the aims/objectives of the study clear? 2. Was the study design appropriate for the stated aim(s)? 3. Was the sample size justified? 4. Was the target/reference population clearly defined? (Is it clear who the research was about?). 5. Was the sample frame taken from an appropriate population base so that it closely represented the target/reference population under investigation? 6. Was the selection process likely to select subjects/participants that were representative of the target/reference population under investigation? 7. Were measures undertaken to address and categorize non-responders? 8. Were the risk factor and outcome variables measured appropriate to the aims of the study? 9. Were the risk factor and outcome variables measured correctly using instruments/measurements that had been trialed, piloted, or published previously? 10. Is it clear what was used to determined statistical significance and/or precision estimates? (e.g., p values, CIs). 11. Were the methods (including statistical methods) sufficiently described to enable them to be repeated? 12. Were the basic data adequately described? 13. Does the response rate raise concerns about non-response bias? 14. If appropriate, was information about non-responders described? 15. Were the results internally consistent? 16. Were the results for the analyses described in the methods, presented? 17. Were the authors’ discussions and conclusions justified by the results? 18. Were the limitations of the study discussed? 19. Were there any funding sources or conflicts of interest that may affect the authors’ interpretation of the results? 20. Was ethical approval or consent of participants attained?
  2. The items 7, 9, 13, 14, and 20 were excluded because those are unrelated to the aims of our review.
  3. Y=Yes
  4. N=No
  5. C=Do not know/comment
  6. *The risk factor analysis is not applicable for the outcome of interest of this study. Therefore, in this item, we consider only the analysis of measurement of the outcome variables
  7. C1The sample size is not determined a priori because authors took in account the publications in a specific period from some journals
  8. C2Authors analyzed all articles from specific journal(s), there was no description of selection process
  9. C3Authors did not specify the study design
  10. C4No statement about conflict of interest
  11. C5The outcome variables measurement was not specified in the “Methods” section of this article