↓ Skip to main content

Overview of data-synthesis in systematic reviews of studies on outcome prediction models

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Overview of data-synthesis in systematic reviews of studies on outcome prediction models
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-13-42
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tobias van den Berg, Martijn W Heymans, Stephanie S Leone, David Vergouw, Jill A Hayden, Arianne P Verhagen, Henrica CW de Vet

Abstract

Many prognostic models have been developed. Different types of models, i.e. prognostic factor and outcome prediction studies, serve different purposes, which should be reflected in how the results are summarized in reviews. Therefore we set out to investigate how authors of reviews synthesize and report the results of primary outcome prediction studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Peru 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 119 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 19%
Researcher 15 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 33 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 12%
Psychology 6 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Computer Science 3 2%
Other 21 17%
Unknown 41 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 May 2013.
All research outputs
#18,337,420
of 22,708,120 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,727
of 2,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,379
of 196,543 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#30
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,708,120 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 196,543 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.