↓ Skip to main content

Triangulating meta-analyses: the example of the serotonin transporter gene, stressful life events and major depression

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychology, May 2016
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 (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
38 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Triangulating meta-analyses: the example of the serotonin transporter gene, stressful life events and major depression
Published in
BMC Psychology, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40359-016-0129-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amy E. Taylor, Marcus R. Munafò

Abstract

Meta-analysis is intended as a tool for the objective synthesis of evidence across a literature, in order to obtain the best evidence as to whether or not an association or effect is robust. However, as the use of meta-analysis has proliferated it has become increasingly clear that the results of a meta-analysis can be critically sensitive to methodological and analytical choices, so that different meta-analyses on the same topic can arrive at quite different conclusions. We demonstrate the variability in results of different meta-analyses on the same topic, using the example of the literature on the putative moderating effect of 5-HTTLPR genotype on the association between stressful life events and major depression. We also extend on previous work by including a P-curve analysis of studies from this literature, drawn from a previous meta-analysis, in an attempt to resolve the discrepant conclusions arrived at by previous meta-analyses. We highlight the divergent conclusions that can be reached when different methodological and analytical choices are taken, and argue that triangulating evidence using multiple evidence synthesis methods is preferable where possible, and that every effort should be made for meta-analyses to be as unbiased as possible (e.g., conducted by methodologists or as part of an adversarial collaboration between authors from opposing camps).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 54 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 24%
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Postgraduate 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Other 14 25%
Unknown 2 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 13%
Social Sciences 6 11%
Neuroscience 5 9%
Mathematics 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 7 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 01 February 2021.
All research outputs
#1,275,329
of 19,164,538 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychology
#66
of 519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,068
of 276,708 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,164,538 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 276,708 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them