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 |
Which is more generalizable, powerful and interpretable in meta-analyses, mean difference or standardized mean difference?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-14-30 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nozomi Takeshima, Takashi Sozu, Aran Tajika, Yusuke Ogawa, Yu Hayasaka, Toshiaki A Furukawa |
| Abstract |
To examine empirically whether the mean difference (MD) or the standardised mean difference (SMD) is more generalizable and statistically powerful in meta-analyses of continuous outcomes when the same unit is used. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 1 | 33% |
| Germany | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 172 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Macao | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Peru | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 168 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 15% |
| Researcher | 25 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 8% |
| Other | 32 | 19% |
| Unknown | 38 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 46 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 5% |
| Psychology | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 30 | 17% |
| Unknown | 47 | 27% |
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 10 March 2014.
All research outputs
#14,190,698
of 22,745,803 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,376
of 2,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,949
of 224,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#25
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,745,803 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 224,442 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.