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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Detecting, quantifying and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses: protocol of a systematic review on methods
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-2-60 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Katharina Felicitas Mueller, Joerg J Meerpohl, Matthias Briel, Gerd Antes, Erik von Elm, Britta Lang, Viktoria Gloy, Edith Motschall, Guido Schwarzer, Dirk Bassler |
| Abstract |
Health professionals and policymakers aspire to make healthcare decisions based on the entire relevant research evidence. This, however, can rarely be achieved because a considerable amount of research findings are not published, especially in case of 'negative' results - a phenomenon widely recognized as publication bias. Different methods of detecting, quantifying and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses have been described in the literature, such as graphical approaches and formal statistical tests to detect publication bias, and statistical approaches to modify effect sizes to adjust a pooled estimate when the presence of publication bias is suspected. An up-to-date systematic review of the existing methods is lacking. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Belgium | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 72 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 16% |
| Researcher | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 26% |
| Unknown | 11 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 39% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Psychology | 5 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 18% |
| Unknown | 14 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 29 June 2021.
All research outputs
#7,186,266
of 22,715,151 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,277
of 1,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,251
of 198,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#14
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,715,151 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
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 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 198,060 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.