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 |
Bench-to-bedside review: Avoiding pitfalls in critical care meta-analysis – funnel plots, risk estimates, types of heterogeneity, baseline risk and the ecologic fallacy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, July 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc6941 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael C Reade, Anthony Delaney, Michael J Bailey, Derek C Angus |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 3% |
| Brazil | 2 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Belgium | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 84 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 16 | 17% |
| Researcher | 15 | 16% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 15 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 25 | 27% |
| Unknown | 7 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 58 | 62% |
| Psychology | 6 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 12 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 19 September 2018.
All research outputs
#4,618,763
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,180
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,511
of 97,352 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#5
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 97,352 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.