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 |
SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-14-43 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carlijn R Hooijmans, Maroeska M Rovers, Rob BM de Vries, Marlies Leenaars, Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga, Miranda W Langendam |
| Abstract |
Systematic Reviews (SRs) of experimental animal studies are not yet common practice, but awareness of the merits of conducting such SRs is steadily increasing. As animal intervention studies differ from randomized clinical trials (RCT) in many aspects, the methodology for SRs of clinical trials needs to be adapted and optimized for animal intervention studies. The Cochrane Collaboration developed a Risk of Bias (RoB) tool to establish consistency and avoid discrepancies in assessing the methodological quality of RCTs. A similar initiative is warranted in the field of animal experimentation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Romania | 3 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
| Belgium | 1 | 6% |
| Germany | 1 | 6% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 6% |
| Singapore | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 8 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 44% |
| Scientists | 7 | 39% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,274 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 1267 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 180 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 177 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 138 | 11% |
| Researcher | 114 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 86 | 7% |
| Other | 165 | 13% |
| Unknown | 414 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 323 | 25% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 78 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 74 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 67 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 64 | 5% |
| Other | 186 | 15% |
| Unknown | 482 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 07 April 2023.
All research outputs
#1,632,954
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#197
of 2,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,958
of 242,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#5
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,327 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 242,254 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.