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 |
Impact of missing participant data for dichotomous outcomes on pooled effect estimates in systematic reviews: a protocol for a methodological study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-3-137 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elie A Akl, Lara A Kahale, Arnav Agarwal, Nada Al-Matari, Shanil Ebrahim, Paul Elias Alexander, Matthias Briel, Romina Brignardello-Petersen, Jason W Busse, Batoul Diab, Alfonso Iorio, Joey Kwong, Ling Li, Luciane Cruz Lopes, Reem Mustafa, Ignacio Neumann, Kari AO Tikkinen, Per Olav Vandvik, Yuqing Zhang, Pablo Alonso-Coello, Gordon Guyatt |
| Abstract |
There is no consensus on how authors conducting meta-analysis should deal with trial participants with missing outcome data. The objectives of this study are to assess in Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews: (1) which categories of trial participants the systematic review authors consider as having missing participant data (MPD), (2) how trialists reported on participants with missing outcome data in trials, (3) whether systematic reviewer authors actually dealt with MPD in their meta-analyses of dichotomous outcomes consistently with their reported methods, and (4) the impact of different methods of dealing with MPD on pooled effect estimates in meta-analyses of dichotomous outcomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Finland | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 32 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 29% |
| Professor | 4 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Librarian | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 6 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 9% |
| Mathematics | 2 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 9 | 26% |
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 17 December 2014.
All research outputs
#18,386,678
of 22,774,233 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,781
of 1,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#262,172
of 361,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#48
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,774,233 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,992 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 361,963 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.