↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of non-response bias in a cohort study of World Trade Center terrorist attack survivors

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Evaluation of non-response bias in a cohort study of World Trade Center terrorist attack survivors
Published in
BMC Research Notes, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-0994-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shengchao Yu, Robert M Brackbill, Steven D Stellman, Sharon Ghuman, Mark R Farfel

Abstract

Few longitudinal studies of disaster cohorts have assessed both non-response bias in prevalence estimates of health outcomes and in the estimates of associations between health outcomes and disaster exposures. We examined the factors associated with non-response and the possible non-response bias in prevalence estimates and association estimates in a longitudinal study of World Trade Center (WTC) terrorist attack survivors.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 20%
Student > Master 9 20%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Other 3 7%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 23%
Psychology 9 20%
Social Sciences 7 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Sports and Recreations 2 5%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 8 18%

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 06 December 2018.
All research outputs
#5,420,287
of 17,361,274 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#920
of 3,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,165
of 267,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,361,274 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 3,664 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 267,699 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them