↓ Skip to main content

Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
10 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 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
Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2019
DOI 10.1186/s12874-019-0717-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrija Babic, Ruzica Tokalic, João Amílcar Silva Cunha, Ivana Novak, Jelena Suto, Marin Vidak, Ivana Miosic, Ivana Vuka, Tina Poklepovic Pericic, Livia Puljak

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 20%
Student > Bachelor 13 14%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 8 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 30 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 12%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 35 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 24 January 2022.
All research outputs
#1,658,390
of 22,979,862 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#220
of 2,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,168
of 351,841 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#12
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,979,862 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,028 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 351,841 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.