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 |
Questioning the application of risk of bias tools in appraising evidence from natural experimental studies: critical reflections on Benton et al., IJBNPA 2016
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12966-017-0500-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David K. Humphreys, Jenna Panter, David Ogilvie |
| Abstract |
We recently read the article by Benton et al. which reviewed risk of bias in natural experimental studies investigating the impact of the built environment on physical activity (Benton et al., 2016; Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 13:107). As a technical exercise in assessing risk of bias to understand study quality, we found the results of this study both interesting and potentially useful. However, it prompted a number of concerns with the use of risk of bias tools for assessing the quality of evidence from studies exploiting natural experiments. As we discuss in this commentary, the rigid application of such tools could have adverse effects on the uptake and use of natural experiments in population health research and practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 | 15 | 63% |
| Denmark | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 12 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 9 | 38% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 17% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 9 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 7 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 11% |
| Psychology | 2 | 6% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 15 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 06 August 2017.
All research outputs
#2,471,599
of 23,305,591 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#924
of 1,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,866
of 311,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#38
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,305,591 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,958 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
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 311,167 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.