↓ Skip to main content

Realising respiratory microbiomic meta-analyses: time for a standardised framework

Overview of attention for article published in Microbiome, March 2023
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 (86th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
6 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
Realising respiratory microbiomic meta-analyses: time for a standardised framework
Published in
Microbiome, March 2023
DOI 10.1186/s40168-023-01499-w
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Broderick, Robyn Marsh, David Waite, Naveen Pillarisetti, Anne B. Chang, Michael W. Taylor

Abstract

In microbiome fields of study, meta-analyses have proven to be a valuable tool for identifying the technical drivers of variation among studies and results of investigations in several diseases, such as those of the gut and sinuses. Meta-analyses also represent a powerful and efficient approach to leverage existing scientific data to both reaffirm existing findings and generate new hypotheses within the field. However, there are currently limited data in other fields, such as the paediatric respiratory tract, where extension of original data becomes even more critical due to samples often being difficult to obtain and process for a range of both technical and ethical reasons. Performing such analyses in an evolving field comes with challenges related to data accessibility and heterogeneity. This is particularly the case in paediatric respiratory microbiomics - a field in which best microbiome-related practices are not yet firmly established, clinical heterogeneity abounds and ethical challenges can complicate sharing of patient data. Having recently conducted a large-scale, individual participant data meta-analysis of the paediatric respiratory microbiota (n = 2624 children from 20 studies), we discuss here some of the unique barriers facing these studies and open and invite a dialogue towards future opportunities. Video Abstract.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 17%
Student > Master 1 17%
Unknown 2 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 1 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 17%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 17%
Materials Science 1 17%
Unknown 2 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 27 March 2023.
All research outputs
#3,307,535
of 23,485,204 outputs
Outputs from Microbiome
#1,149
of 1,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,103
of 250,708 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbiome
#27
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,485,204 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,510 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 250,708 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.