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 |
A Microsoft-Excel-based tool for running and critically appraising network meta-analyses—an overview and application of NetMetaXL
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-3-110 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephen Brown, Brian Hutton, Tammy Clifford, Doug Coyle, Daniel Grima, George Wells, Chris Cameron |
| Abstract |
The use of network meta-analysis has increased dramatically in recent years. WinBUGS, a freely available Bayesian software package, has been the most widely used software package to conduct network meta-analyses. However, the learning curve for WinBUGS can be daunting, especially for new users. Furthermore, critical appraisal of network meta-analyses conducted in WinBUGS can be challenging given its limited data manipulation capabilities and the fact that generation of graphical output from network meta-analyses often relies on different software packages than the analyses themselves. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 5 | 16% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 13% |
| Spain | 3 | 9% |
| Chile | 2 | 6% |
| Malaysia | 2 | 6% |
| Ireland | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 14 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 20 | 63% |
| Scientists | 7 | 22% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Canada | 2 | 1% |
| Israel | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 155 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 14% |
| Researcher | 17 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 9% |
| Other | 13 | 8% |
| Other | 42 | 26% |
| Unknown | 37 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 63 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 23 | 14% |
| Unknown | 46 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 May 2015.
All research outputs
#1,741,637
of 25,517,918 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#276
of 2,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,838
of 264,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#7
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,517,918 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 2,238 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 264,445 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 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.