↓ Skip to main content

Statistics review 1: Presenting and summarising data

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, November 2001
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
88 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
902 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
connotea
3 Connotea
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
Statistics review 1: Presenting and summarising data
Published in
Critical Care, November 2001
DOI 10.1186/cc1455
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elise Whitley, Jonathan Ball

Abstract

The present review is the first in an ongoing guide to medical statistics, using specific examples from intensive care. The first step in any analysis is to describe and summarize the data. As well as becoming familiar with the data, this is also an opportunity to look for unusually high or low values (outliers), to check the assumptions required for statistical tests, and to decide the best way to categorize the data if this is necessary. In addition to tables and graphs, summary values are a convenient way to summarize large amounts of information. This review introduces some of these measures. It describes and gives examples of qualitative data (unordered and ordered) and quantitative data (discrete and continuous); how these types of data can be represented figuratively; the two important features of a quantitative dataset (location and variability); the measures of location (mean, median and mode); the measures of variability (range, interquartile range, standard deviation and variance); common distributions of clinical data; and simple transformations of positively skewed data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 902 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 19 2%
United Kingdom 14 2%
Brazil 12 1%
Canada 8 <1%
Germany 7 <1%
Denmark 5 <1%
India 5 <1%
Czechia 4 <1%
Chile 3 <1%
Other 44 5%
Unknown 781 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 172 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 162 18%
Student > Master 114 13%
Other 80 9%
Student > Postgraduate 64 7%
Other 224 25%
Unknown 86 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 368 41%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 148 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 3%
Engineering 30 3%
Computer Science 28 3%
Other 184 20%
Unknown 113 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 June 2017.
All research outputs
#16,048,318
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,211
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,858
of 131,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 131,955 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.