↓ Skip to main content

Conducting proportional meta-analysis in different types of systematic reviews: a guide for synthesisers of evidence

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
27 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
214 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
144 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Conducting proportional meta-analysis in different types of systematic reviews: a guide for synthesisers of evidence
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2021
DOI 10.1186/s12874-021-01381-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timothy Hugh Barker, Celina Borges Migliavaca, Cinara Stein, Verônica Colpani, Maicon Falavigna, Edoardo Aromataris, Zachary Munn

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 144 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 13%
Student > Master 17 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 10%
Student > Postgraduate 10 7%
Student > Bachelor 10 7%
Other 25 17%
Unknown 49 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 3%
Other 28 19%
Unknown 56 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 28 July 2023.
All research outputs
#1,838,124
of 24,176,645 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#238
of 2,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,674
of 422,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#4
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,176,645 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,148 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 422,522 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.