↓ Skip to main content

Undue reliance on I2 in assessing heterogeneity may mislead

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#22 of 2,314)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
154 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
856 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
311 Mendeley
citeulike
4 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
Undue reliance on I2 in assessing heterogeneity may mislead
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2008
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-8-79
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gerta Rücker, Guido Schwarzer, James R Carpenter, Martin Schumacher

Abstract

The heterogeneity statistic I(2), interpreted as the percentage of variability due to heterogeneity between studies rather than sampling error, depends on precision, that is, the size of the studies included.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 154 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 311 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Netherlands 3 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 294 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 60 19%
Researcher 56 18%
Student > Master 38 12%
Student > Bachelor 27 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 5%
Other 57 18%
Unknown 56 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 108 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 6%
Mathematics 20 6%
Psychology 18 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 5%
Other 55 18%
Unknown 75 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 121. 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 08 February 2024.
All research outputs
#351,029
of 25,754,670 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#22
of 2,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,005
of 180,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,754,670 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 180,409 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them