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 |
Risk of bias judgments for random sequence generation in Cochrane systematic reviews were frequently not in line with Cochrane Handbook
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-019-0804-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ognjen Barcot, Matija Boric, Tina Poklepovic Pericic, Marija Cavar, Svjetlana Dosenovic, Ivana Vuka, Livia Puljak |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 20% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 20% |
| Croatia | 1 | 20% |
| Ireland | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 19% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 15 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 22% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 8% |
| Psychology | 3 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 17 | 47% |
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 June 2023.
All research outputs
#7,535,475
of 24,932,434 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,103
of 2,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,848
of 351,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#22
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,932,434 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,223 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 351,015 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.