↓ Skip to main content

Thresholds for statistical and clinical significance in systematic reviews with meta-analytic methods

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
28 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
335 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Thresholds for statistical and clinical significance in systematic reviews with meta-analytic methods
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-14-120
Pubmed ID
Authors

Janus Christian Jakobsen, Jørn Wetterslev, Per Winkel, Theis Lange, Christian Gluud

Abstract

Thresholds for statistical significance when assessing meta-analysis results are being insufficiently demonstrated by traditional 95% confidence intervals and P-values. Assessment of intervention effects in systematic reviews with meta-analysis deserves greater rigour.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Peru 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 149 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 19%
Student > Master 24 16%
Researcher 21 14%
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Other 13 9%
Other 24 16%
Unknown 23 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 75 49%
Psychology 10 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Mathematics 6 4%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 34 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 13 August 2020.
All research outputs
#883,229
of 18,845,687 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#114
of 1,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,479
of 328,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#5
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,845,687 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,704 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 328,428 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.