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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Meta-analyses including non-randomized studies of therapeutic interventions: a methodological review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-016-0136-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Timor Faber, Philippe Ravaud, Carolina Riveros, Elodie Perrodeau, Agnes Dechartres |
| Abstract |
There is an increasing number of meta-analyses including data from non-randomized studies for therapeutic evaluation. We aimed to systematically assess the methods used in meta-analyses including non-randomized studies evaluating therapeutic interventions. For this methodological review, we searched MEDLINE via PubMed, from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 for meta-analyses including at least one non-randomized study evaluating therapeutic interventions. Etiological assessments and meta-analyses with no comparison group were excluded. Two reviewers independently assessed the general characteristics and key methodological components of the systematic review process and meta-analysis methods. One hundred eighty eight meta-analyses were selected: 119 included both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI) and 69 only NRSI. Half of the meta-analyses (n = 92, 49 %) evaluated non-pharmacological interventions. "Grey literature" was searched for 72 meta-analyses (38 %). An assessment of methodological quality or risk of bias was reported in 135 meta-analyses (72 %) but this assessment considered the risk of confounding bias in only 33 meta-analyses (18 %). In 130 meta-analyses (69 %), the design of each NRSI was not clearly specified. In 131 (70 %), whether crude or adjusted estimates of treatment effect for NRSI were combined was unclear or not reported. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed in 182 meta-analyses (97 %) and further explored in 157 (84 %). Reporting bias was assessed in 127 (68 %). Some key methodological components of the systematic review process-search for grey literature, description of the type of NRSI included, assessment of risk of confounding bias and reporting of whether crude or adjusted estimates were combined-are not adequately carried out or reported in meta-analyses including NRSI. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 14% |
| France | 2 | 10% |
| Peru | 2 | 10% |
| Canada | 2 | 10% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| Latvia | 1 | 5% |
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 57% |
| Scientists | 5 | 24% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 19% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 139 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 9% |
| Other | 11 | 8% |
| Other | 22 | 16% |
| Unknown | 45 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 51 | 36% |
| Psychology | 7 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 19 | 13% |
| Unknown | 51 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 13 December 2016.
All research outputs
#2,510,529
of 24,793,937 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#377
of 2,205 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,833
of 305,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#5
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,793,937 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,205 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 305,970 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.