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 |
Constraint-induced movement therapy: trial sequential analysis applied to Cochrane collaboration systematic review results
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1745-6215-15-512 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Greta Castellini, Silvia Gianola, Rita Banzi, Davide Corbetta, Roberto Gatti, Valeria Sirtori, Christian Gluud, Lorenzo Moja |
| Abstract |
Trial sequential analysis (TSA) may establish when firm evidence about the efficacy of interventions is reached in a cumulative meta-analysis, combining a required information size with adjusted thresholds for conservative statistical significance. Our aim was to demonstrate TSA results on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in a Cochrane systematic review on the effectiveness of constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) for stroke patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 1% |
| Colombia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 98 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 17% |
| Researcher | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 11% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 16% |
| Unknown | 25 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 18% |
| Neuroscience | 11 | 11% |
| Psychology | 3 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Unknown | 29 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 January 2015.
All research outputs
#17,154,245
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#23
of 45 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,684
of 363,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#22
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 45 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one scored the same or higher as 22 of them.
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 363,153 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.