ArticleSystematic reviews2026
Dissemination patterns of Cochrane reviews on nutrition and physical activity using Altmetric data: a bibliographic study.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCochrane reviews on nutrition and physical activity (PA) are highly relevant to scientists, practitioners, and the general public. It is important to investigate the dissemination patterns of these reviews to improve the uptake of their findings in practice. The aims of this study were (1) to describe the online and scientific attention towards Cochrane reviews on nutrition and PA using Altmetric data and (2) to investigate the associations between Altmetric data and review characteristics.
methodsThis cross-sectional, bibliographic study used data from 249 Cochrane reviews on nutrition and PA for healthy or at-risk populations that were published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception until May 2024. Review characteristics and open-access Altmetric data were extracted and analysed using relative frequencies. The associations among Altmetric Attention Scores (a measure of online attention), Dimensions Citations Scores (a measure of scientific attention), and review characteristics were computed using binary logistic regression analysis.
resultsThe 249 Cochrane reviews were published over a period of 25 years (1999-2024), included 0-195 studies, conducted a meta-analysis (80%), and had a plain language summary (PLS) available in 2-17 languages. Dissemination occurred via social media, including predominantly Twitter/X (n = 242), Facebook (n = 210), and Wikipedia (n = 172). Online attention based on the Altmetric Attention Scores ranged between 3 and 4111 (51% of reviews had scores between 3 and 48). Scientific attention based on the Dimensions Citations Scores ranged between 0 and 2700 (50% of reviews had scores between 0 and 81). Higher online attention was associated with higher scientific attention (odds ratio, OR = 11.14, 95% confidence interval, CI: 5.08-24.40) and more PLS languages (OR = 1.38, CI: 1.22-1.57). Higher scientific attention was associated with higher online attention (OR = 11.06, CI: 4.96-24.64), older publication year (OR = 0.12, CI: 0.06-0.27), more studies included in the review (OR = 4.13, CI: 1.90-8.98), and a meta-analysis conducted in the review (OR = 6.32, CI: 2.42-16.53).
conclusionsThere was generally high online and scientific attention towards Cochrane reviews on nutrition and PA, mainly due to mentions in the social media and academic citations. Future studies need to investigate if higher online and scientific attention could enhance evidence uptake from Cochrane reviews in practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.