↓ Skip to main content

Methodological criteria for the assessment of moderators in systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials: a consensus study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
98 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Methodological criteria for the assessment of moderators in systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials: a consensus study
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-11-14
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tamar Pincus, Clare Miles, Robert Froud, Martin Underwood, Dawn Carnes, Stephanie JC Taylor

Abstract

Current methodological guidelines provide advice about the assessment of sub-group analysis within RCTs, but do not specify explicit criteria for assessment. Our objective was to provide researchers with a set of criteria that will facilitate the grading of evidence for moderators, in systematic reviews.

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 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Norway 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 93 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 23%
Researcher 17 17%
Student > Master 14 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 5%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 15 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 24%
Psychology 20 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 9%
Social Sciences 9 9%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 23 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 01 February 2023.
All research outputs
#6,964,513
of 24,716,872 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,037
of 2,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,782
of 193,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#6
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,716,872 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,200 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. 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 193,096 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.