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 |
Patient-reported outcomes in meta-analyses – Part 1: assessing risk of bias and combining outcomes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1477-7525-11-109 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bradley C Johnston, Donald L Patrick, Jason W Busse, Holger J Schünemann, Arnav Agarwal, Gordon H Guyatt |
| Abstract |
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials that include patient-reported outcomes (PROs) often provide crucial information for patients and clinicians facing challenging health care decisions. Based on emerging methods, guidance on combining PROs in meta-analysis is likely to enhance their usefulness.The objectives of this paper are: i) to describe PROs and why they are important for health care decision-making, ii) illustrate the key risk of bias issues that systematic reviewers should consider and, iii) address outcome characteristics of PROs and provide guidance for combining outcomes.We suggest a step-by-step approach to addressing issues of PROs in meta-analyses. Systematic reviewers should begin by asking themselves if trials have addressed all the important effects of treatment on patients' quality of life. If the trials have addressed PROs, have investigators chosen the appropriate instruments? In particular, does evidence suggest the PROs used are valid and responsive, and is the review free of outcome reporting bias? Systematic reviewers must then decide how to categorize PROs and when to pool results. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 2 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 89 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 21 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 11% |
| Professor | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 25 | 26% |
| Unknown | 12 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 38% |
| Psychology | 11 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 14 | 15% |
| Unknown | 21 | 22% |
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 22 July 2013.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,820
of 2,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,444
of 206,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#21
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,297 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 206,705 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.