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 |
Quantifying, displaying and accounting for heterogeneity in the meta-analysis of RCTs using standard and generalised Qstatistics
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-11-41 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jack Bowden, Jayne F Tierney, Andrew J Copas, Sarah Burdett |
| Abstract |
Clinical researchers have often preferred to use a fixed effects model for the primary interpretation of a meta-analysis. Heterogeneity is usually assessed via the well known Q and I2 statistics, along with the random effects estimate they imply. In recent years, alternative methods for quantifying heterogeneity have been proposed, that are based on a 'generalised' Q statistic. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 125 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 24 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 31 | 23% |
| Unknown | 23 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 35 | 26% |
| Mathematics | 12 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 8 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 5% |
| Psychology | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 28 | 21% |
| Unknown | 37 | 28% |
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
#18,341,711
of 22,714,025 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,728
of 2,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,292
of 108,825 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#19
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,714,025 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 108,825 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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.