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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Risk of bias in observational studies using routinely collected data of comparative effectiveness research: a meta-research study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, November 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-021-02151-w |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Van Thu Nguyen, Mishelle Engleton, Mauricia Davison, Philippe Ravaud, Raphael Porcher, Isabelle Boutron |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 6 | 38% |
| Japan | 1 | 6% |
| India | 1 | 6% |
| Mexico | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 63% |
| Scientists | 5 | 31% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 50 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 21 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 18% |
| Unknown | 20 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 18 October 2022.
All research outputs
#4,447,516
of 24,041,016 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,165
of 3,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,380
of 507,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#39
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,041,016 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,664 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.8. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 507,388 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.