↓ Skip to main content

Ignoring regression to the mean leads to unsupported conclusion about obesity

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
17 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Ignoring regression to the mean leads to unsupported conclusion about obesity
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12966-015-0212-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Asheley Cockrell Skinner, Steven B Heymsfield, Angelo Pietrobelli, Myles S Faith, David B Allison

Abstract

Childhood obesity remains a substantial health concern for our population and thoughtful attempts to develop and evaluate the utility of programs to reduce childhood obesity levels are needed. Unfortunately, we believe the conclusion by Burke et al. that the HealthMPowers program produces positive change in body composition is incorrect because the results obtained are likely due to regression to the mean (RTM), a well-known threat to the validity of studies that is often overlooked. Using empirical data, we demonstrate that RTM is likely to be the cause for the changes reported. A more reasonable conclusion than the one of effectiveness the authors offered would be that the results did not support the effectiveness of the intervention. Public health officials, parents, school leaders, community leaders, and regulators need and deserve valid evidence free from spin on which they can base decisions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 31 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Other 2 6%
Professor 2 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Other 7 22%
Unknown 9 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 25%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Computer Science 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 10 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 15 December 2022.
All research outputs
#984,876
of 24,554,073 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#326
of 2,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,166
of 269,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#7
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,554,073 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,055 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 269,185 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.