↓ Skip to main content

Using interviewer random effects to remove selection bias from HIV prevalence estimates

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
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.
Title
Using interviewer random effects to remove selection bias from HIV prevalence estimates
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-15-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark E McGovern, Till Bärnighausen, Joshua A Salomon, David Canning

Abstract

Selection bias in HIV prevalence estimates occurs if non-participation in testing is correlated with HIV status. Longitudinal data suggests that individuals who know or suspect they are HIV positive are less likely to participate in testing in HIV surveys, in which case methods to correct for missing data which are based on imputation and observed characteristics will produce biased results.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 15%
Lecturer 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Student > Master 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 7 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 20%
Mathematics 3 15%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 15%
Social Sciences 2 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 35%
Attention Score in Context

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 20 April 2015.
All research outputs
#13,933,865
of 22,789,076 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,349
of 2,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,790
of 352,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#14
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,789,076 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,011 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 352,185 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.