↓ Skip to main content

Undue reliance on I 2 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 (#37 of 1,923)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
98 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
663 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
239 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 I 2 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 98 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 239 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 222 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 48 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 19%
Student > Master 30 13%
Student > Bachelor 19 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 7%
Other 45 19%
Unknown 35 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 89 37%
Mathematics 19 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 5%
Psychology 10 4%
Other 42 18%
Unknown 52 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 76. 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 30 July 2022.
All research outputs
#439,895
of 21,750,593 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#37
of 1,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,338
of 206,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,750,593 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 206,784 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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