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 |
Meta-analysis, complexity, and heterogeneity: a qualitative interview study of researchers’ methodological values and practices
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-016-0366-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Theo Lorenc, Lambert Felix, Mark Petticrew, G J Melendez-Torres, James Thomas, Sian Thomas, Alison O’Mara-Eves, Michelle Richardson |
| Abstract |
Complex or heterogeneous data pose challenges for systematic review and meta-analysis. In recent years, a number of new methods have been developed to meet these challenges. This qualitative interview study aimed to understand researchers' understanding of complexity and heterogeneity and the factors which may influence the choices researchers make in synthesising complex data. We conducted interviews with a purposive sample of researchers (N = 19) working in systematic review or meta-analysis across a range of disciplines. We analysed data thematically using a framework approach. Participants reported using a broader range of methods and data types in complex reviews than in traditional reviews. A range of techniques are used to explore heterogeneity, but there is some debate about their validity, particularly when applied post hoc. Technical considerations of how to synthesise complex evidence cannot be isolated from questions of the goals and contexts of research. However, decisions about how to analyse data appear to be made in a largely informal way, drawing on tacit expertise, and their relation to these broader questions remains unclear. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 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 | 18 | 49% |
| Canada | 4 | 11% |
| Australia | 2 | 5% |
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Lebanon | 1 | 3% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 3% |
| India | 1 | 3% |
| Chile | 1 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 19% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 20 | 54% |
| Members of the public | 15 | 41% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 3% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 99 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 21 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 14% |
| Researcher | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 16 | 16% |
| Unknown | 28 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 18 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
| Decision Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 24 | 24% |
| Unknown | 28 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 15 September 2018.
All research outputs
#1,541,635
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#241
of 2,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,069
of 271,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#11
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. 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 271,957 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.