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 |
Concordance between decision analysis and matching systematic review of randomized controlled trials in assessment of treatment comparisons: a systematic review
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2014
|
DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-14-57 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Rahul S Mhaskar, Hesborn Wao, Helen Mahony, Ambuj Kumar, Benjamin Djulbegovic |
Abstract |
Systematic review (SR) of randomized controlled trials (RCT) is the gold standard for informing treatment choice. Decision analyses (DA) also play an important role in informing health care decisions. It is unknown how often the results of DA and matching SR of RCTs are in concordance. We assessed whether the results of DA are in concordance with SR of RCTs matched on patient population, intervention, control, and outcomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
India | 2 | 50% |
United States | 1 | 25% |
Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 10 | 27% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 16% |
Other | 4 | 11% |
Researcher | 3 | 8% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
Other | 5 | 14% |
Unknown | 8 | 22% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 32% |
Engineering | 3 | 8% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
Other | 10 | 27% |
Unknown | 8 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 06 October 2014.
All research outputs
#12,900,601
of 22,758,248 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#877
of 1,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,516
of 226,959 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#17
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,248 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,985 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 226,959 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 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 52% of its contemporaries.