The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 136 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 |
Overstating the evidence – double counting in meta-analysis and related problems
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-9-10 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephen J Senn |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 13 | 10% |
| United States | 6 | 4% |
| Brazil | 3 | 2% |
| Australia | 3 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 1% |
| Canada | 2 | 1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Timor-Leste | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | 3% |
| Unknown | 100 | 74% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 74 | 54% |
| Scientists | 42 | 31% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 14 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 6 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 2% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Peru | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 109 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 26 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 9% |
| Professor | 7 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 29 | 25% |
| Unknown | 14 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 48 | 41% |
| Psychology | 10 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 6% |
| Mathematics | 7 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 16% |
| Unknown | 20 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 92. 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 10 April 2024.
All research outputs
#485,946
of 26,289,377 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#39
of 2,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,442
of 194,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,289,377 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,369 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 194,090 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them