↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of individual patient data meta-analyses on surgical interventions

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
A systematic review of individual patient data meta-analyses on surgical interventions
Published in
Systematic Reviews, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-2-52
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gerjon Hannink, Hein G Gooszen, Cornelis JHM van Laarhoven, Maroeska M Rovers

Abstract

Compared to subgroup analyses in a single study or in a traditional meta-analysis, an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) offers important potential advantages. We studied how many IPDMAs report on surgical interventions, how many of those surgical IPDMAs perform subgroup analyses, and whether these subgroup analyses have changed decision-making in clinical practice.

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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 7%
Denmark 1 7%
Australia 1 7%
Unknown 12 80%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 20%
Other 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Professor 1 7%
Other 3 20%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 67%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Philosophy 1 7%
Unknown 3 20%
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 08 July 2013.
All research outputs
#18,341,369
of 22,713,403 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,776
of 1,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,930
of 194,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#20
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,713,403 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 1,987 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 194,389 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 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.