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
| Title |
Meta-evaluation of meta-analysis: ten appraisal questions for biologists
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Biology, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12915-017-0357-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shinichi Nakagawa, Daniel W. A. Noble, Alistair M. Senior, Malgorzata Lagisz |
| Abstract |
Meta-analysis is a statistical procedure for analyzing the combined data from different studies, and can be a major source of concise up-to-date information. The overall conclusions of a meta-analysis, however, depend heavily on the quality of the meta-analytic process, and an appropriate evaluation of the quality of meta-analysis (meta-evaluation) can be challenging. We outline ten questions biologists can ask to critically appraise a meta-analysis. These questions could also act as simple and accessible guidelines for the authors of meta-analyses. We focus on meta-analyses using non-human species, which we term 'biological' meta-analysis. Our ten questions are aimed at enabling a biologist to evaluate whether a biological meta-analysis embodies 'mega-enlightenment', a 'mega-mistake', or something in between. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 157 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 18 | 11% |
| United States | 14 | 9% |
| Australia | 10 | 6% |
| Spain | 10 | 6% |
| France | 7 | 4% |
| Canada | 7 | 4% |
| Germany | 6 | 4% |
| Sweden | 4 | 3% |
| New Zealand | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 28 | 18% |
| Unknown | 50 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 79 | 50% |
| Scientists | 61 | 39% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 11 | 7% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 731 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Macao | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 724 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 152 | 21% |
| Researcher | 122 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 109 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 62 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 48 | 7% |
| Other | 95 | 13% |
| Unknown | 143 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 272 | 37% |
| Environmental Science | 126 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 29 | 4% |
| Psychology | 20 | 3% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 2% |
| Other | 77 | 11% |
| Unknown | 189 | 26% |