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 |
The McNemar test for binary matched-pairs data: mid-p and asymptotic are better than exact conditional
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-13-91 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Morten W Fagerland, Stian Lydersen, Petter Laake |
| Abstract |
Statistical methods that use the mid-p approach are useful tools to analyze categorical data, particularly for small and moderate sample sizes. Mid-p tests strike a balance between overly conservative exact methods and asymptotic methods that frequently violate the nominal level. Here, we examine a mid-p version of the McNemar exact conditional test for the analysis of paired binomial proportions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Saudi Arabia | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 191 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 187 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 37 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 34 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 25 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 17 | 9% |
| Other | 18 | 9% |
| Unknown | 40 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 35 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 7% |
| Engineering | 14 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 9 | 5% |
| Mathematics | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 60 | 31% |
| Unknown | 51 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 01 May 2023.
All research outputs
#4,432,794
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#677
of 2,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,446
of 209,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#7
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,318 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 209,789 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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 72% of its contemporaries.