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 |
Inappropriate statistical method in a parallel-group randomized controlled trial results in unsubstantiated conclusions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nutrition Journal, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12937-016-0163-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rositsa B. Dimova, David B. Allison |
| Abstract |
The conclusions of Cassani et al. in the January 2015 issue of Nutrition Journal (doi: 10.1186/1475-2891-14-5 ) cannot be substantiated by the analysis reported nor by the data themselves. The authors ascribed the observed decrease in inflammatory markers to the components of flaxseed and based their conclusions on within-group comparisons made between the final and the baseline measurements separately in each arm of the randomized controlled trial. However, this is an improper approach and the conclusions of the paper are invalid. A correct analysis of the data shows no such effects. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 20% |
| Australia | 2 | 8% |
| Japan | 1 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| Finland | 1 | 4% |
| Belgium | 1 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 13 | 52% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 52% |
| Scientists | 7 | 28% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 30% |
| Other | 4 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 1 | 5% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 15% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 10% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 05 November 2016.
All research outputs
#1,426,592
of 24,721,757 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#376
of 1,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,121
of 347,299 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#7
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,721,757 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,483 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 347,299 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.