↓ Skip to main content

Effect of standardized training on the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: a study protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
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
Effect of standardized training on the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: a study protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-3-144
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruno R da Costa, Nina M Resta, Brooke Beckett, Nicholas Israel-Stahre, Alison Diaz, Bradley C Johnston, Matthias Egger, Peter Jüni, Susan Armijo-Olivo

Abstract

The Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool has been widely embraced by the systematic review community, but several studies have reported that its reliability is low. We aim to investigate whether training of raters, including objective and standardized instructions on how to assess risk of bias, can improve the reliability of this tool. We describe the methods that will be used in this investigation and present an intensive standardized training package for risk of bias assessment that could be used by contributors to the Cochrane Collaboration and other reviewers.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 4%
Unknown 24 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 20%
Student > Master 5 20%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Professor 2 8%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 8 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Physics and Astronomy 1 4%
Decision Sciences 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 9 36%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 27 April 2015.
All research outputs
#1,059,903
of 11,344,222 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#215
of 827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,812
of 252,779 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#13
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,344,222 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 252,779 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 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 58% of its contemporaries.