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 |
A comparison of meta-analytic methods for synthesizing evidence from explanatory and pragmatic trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-017-0668-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tolulope T. Sajobi, Guowei Li, Oluwagbohunmi Awosoga, Meng Wang, Bijoy K. Menon, Michael D. Hill, Lehana Thabane |
| Abstract |
The pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary version 2 (PRECIS-2) tool has recently been developed to classify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) as pragmatic or explanatory based on their design characteristics. Given that treatment effects in explanatory trials may be greater than those obtained in pragmatic trials, conventional meta-analytic approaches may not accurately account for the heterogeneity among the studies and may result in biased treatment effect estimates. This study investigates if the incorporation of PRECIS-2 classification of published trials can improve the estimation of overall intervention effects in meta-analysis. Using data from 31 published trials of intervention aimed at reducing obesity in children, we evaluated the utility of incorporating PRECIS-2 ratings of published trials into meta-analysis of intervention effects in clinical trials. Specifically, we compared random-effects meta-analysis, stratified meta-analysis, random-effects meta-regression, and mixture random-effects meta-regression methods for estimating overall pooled intervention effects. Our analyses revealed that mixture meta-regression models that incorporate PRECIS-2 classification as covariate resulted in a larger pooled effect size (ES) estimate (ES = - 1.01, 95%CI = [- 1.52, - 0.43]) than conventional random-effects meta-analysis (ES = - 0.15, 95%CI = [- 0.23, - 0.08]). In addition to the original intent of PRECIS-2 tool of aiding researchers in their choice of trial design, PRECIS-2 tool is useful for explaining between study variations in systematic review and meta-analysis of published trials. We recommend that researchers adopt mixture meta-regression methods when synthesizing evidence from explanatory and pragmatic trials. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 29% |
| Colombia | 1 | 14% |
| Canada | 1 | 14% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 14% |
| France | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 1 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Unknown | 9 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 10 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 19 February 2018.
All research outputs
#7,206,403
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,271
of 2,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,405
of 443,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#44
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 443,591 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.