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 |
Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-11-159 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeroen P Jansen, Huseyin Naci |
| Abstract |
In the last decade, network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials has been introduced as an extension of pairwise meta-analysis. The advantage of network meta-analysis over standard pairwise meta-analysis is that it facilitates indirect comparisons of multiple interventions that have not been studied in a head-to-head fashion. Although assumptions underlying pairwise meta-analyses are well understood, those concerning network meta-analyses are perceived to be more complex and prone to misinterpretation. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 1 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 237 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 231 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 47 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 35 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 28 | 12% |
| Other | 27 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 6% |
| Other | 48 | 20% |
| Unknown | 37 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 90 | 38% |
| Mathematics | 16 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 13 | 5% |
| Psychology | 12 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 3% |
| Other | 44 | 19% |
| Unknown | 54 | 23% |
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 13 February 2020.
All research outputs
#4,726,082
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,323
of 4,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,730
of 210,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#38
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 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 4,076 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 46.0. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 210,614 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 81% 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 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.