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 |
Investigation of continuous effect modifiers in a meta-analysis on higher versus lower PEEP in patients requiring mechanical ventilation - protocol of the ICEM study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-3-46 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Benjamin Kasenda, Willi Sauerbrei, Patrick Royston, Matthias Briel |
| Abstract |
Categorizing an inherently continuous predictor in prognostic analyses raises several critical methodological issues: dependence of the statistical significance on the number and position of the chosen cut-point(s), loss of statistical power, and faulty interpretation of the results if a non-linear association is incorrectly assumed to be linear. This also applies to a therapeutic context where investigators of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are interested in interactions between treatment assignment and one or more continuous predictors. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 32 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 27% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 21% |
| Unknown | 7 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 48% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 8 | 24% |
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 29 January 2015.
All research outputs
#18,390,814
of 22,780,165 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,782
of 1,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,042
of 226,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#24
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,780,165 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 1,993 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 226,334 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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.