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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Inter-rater reliability of AMSTAR is dependent on the pair of reviewers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-017-0380-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dawid Pieper, Anja Jacobs, Beate Weikert, Alba Fishta, Uta Wegewitz |
| Abstract |
Inter-rater reliability (IRR) is mainly assessed based on only two reviewers of unknown expertise. The aim of this paper is to examine differences in the IRR of the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and R(evised)-AMSTAR depending on the pair of reviewers. Five reviewers independently applied AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR to 16 systematic reviews (eight Cochrane reviews and eight non-Cochrane reviews) from the field of occupational health. Responses were dichotomized and reliability measures were calculated by applying Holsti's method (r) and Cohen's kappa (κ) to all potential pairs of reviewers. Given that five reviewers participated in the study, there were ten possible pairs of reviewers. Inter-rater reliability varied for AMSTAR between r = 0.82 and r = 0.98 (median r = 0.88) using Holsti's method and κ = 0.41 and κ = 0.69 (median κ = 0.52) using Cohen's kappa and for R-AMSTAR between r = 0.77 and r = 0.89 (median r = 0.82) and κ = 0.32 and κ = 0.67 (median κ = 0.45) depending on the pair of reviewers. The same pair of reviewers yielded the highest IRR for both instruments. Pairwise Cohen's kappa reliability measures showed a moderate correlation between AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR (Spearman's ρ =0.50). The mean inter-rater reliability for AMSTAR was highest for item 1 (κ = 1.00) and item 5 (κ = 0.78), while lowest values were found for items 3, 8, 9 and 11, which showed only fair agreement. Inter-rater reliability varies widely depending on the pair of reviewers. There may be some shortcomings associated with conducting reliability studies with only two reviewers. Further studies should include additional reviewers and should probably also take account of their level of expertise. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 9 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 18 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 November 2017.
All research outputs
#15,483,026
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,521
of 2,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,624
of 312,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#21
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,029 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 312,547 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.