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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Choosing marginal or random-effects models for longitudinal binary responses: application to self-reported disability among older persons
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2002
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-2-15 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Isabelle Carrière, Jean Bouyer |
| Abstract |
Longitudinal studies with binary repeated outcomes are now widespread in epidemiology. The statistical analysis of these studies presents difficulties and standard methods are inadequate. We consider strategies for modelling binary repeated responses and focus on two specific issues: the choice between marginal and random-effects models, and the choice of the time point origin. These issues are addressed using the example of self-reported disability in older women assessed annually for 6 years. The indicator of disability "needing help to go outdoors or home-confined" is used. In view of the observed associations between the responses for consecutive years, the baseline response was considered as a covariate. We compared the marginal and random-effects models first when only the influence of time and age is analysed and second when individual risk factors are studied in an aetiological perspective. There were substantial differences between the parameter estimates. They were due to differences between specific concepts related to the two models and the large between-individual heterogeneity revealed by the analysis. A random-effects model appears to be most suitable for the analysis of self-reported disability in older women. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 4% |
| Portugal | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| India | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 72 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 23 | 28% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 19% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 7% |
| Professor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 14% |
| Unknown | 13 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 26% |
| Mathematics | 11 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 10% |
| Psychology | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 15% |
| Unknown | 15 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 12 February 2014.
All research outputs
#12,929,609
of 22,815,414 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,190
of 2,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,130
of 128,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,815,414 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,012 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 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 128,917 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.