🏆 Finalist — NIH Data Sharing Index (“S-Index”) Challenge
Demo corpus. Scores are computed on a select set of biomedical paper/datasets and may be inaccurate for papers outside this corpus — DataRank relies on network effects that improve with scale. We aim to expand this into a fully open resource pending additional funding.

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

Systematic Reviews(2015)10.1186/2046-4053-4-1Source: DataRank Database

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement is a research paper published in Systematic Reviews (2015). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 1.5. It has been cited 26,180 times.

N/A
1.5DataRank · unranked
1.5
Open Access26180 citations · base score 10.2
Cite:
datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6· scope data_onlyMethodology

Abstract

Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.

Data sources & pipeline
Pipeline:MetadataData-paper checkEnrichmentCitation networkScoring
Enrichment:Pending

FAIR Checklist

Context only (not used in score)
Findable (1/2)
  • Has DOI
Accessible (1/2)
  • Open Access
Interoperable (0/2)
    Reusable (0/3)

      FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.

      DataRank Breakdown

      Base Score 100%Citation Network 0%

      Base Score Contribution

      1.5

      From this paper's citation signal

      Citation Network Contribution

      0

      Citation network not refreshed for this result

      This paper's DataRank is currently driven only by its base citation score. Citation network data was not refreshed for this result.

      Learn more about DataRank methodology →
      Why this DataRank?

      DataRank blends this paper's own citation count with the influence of the papers that cite it. Here, roughly 100% comes from its base citations and 0% from the citation network.

      Base score B(p)
      log1p(citation_count) — grows sub-linearly, so a paper with 1,000 citations is not 10× a paper with 100.
      Network N(p)
      Σ over citers of log1p(Cq) ÷ max(outdegreeq, 1). Being cited by a highly-cited paper with few references counts most.
      Damping factor d = 0.85
      DataRank = (1−d)·B(p) + d·N(p) — the two cards above are each already multiplied by their share.
      Self-citations excluded
      Citers sharing any OpenAlex author ID with this paper are filtered out before the network sum.

      Citers are pulled from OpenAlex sorted by cited_by_count:descand capped per paper, so when the cap binds we keep the highest-signal references and the score is reproducible across reruns.

      Read the full methodology →

      Authors (6)

      Related Papers (10)

      Annals of Internal Medicine(2018)
      co-cited
      10.7326/m18-0850