↓ Skip to main content

Investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews: a methodologic review of guidance in the literature

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
108 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
203 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
Investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews: a methodologic review of guidance in the literature
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-12-111
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joel J Gagnier, David Moher, Heather Boon, Joseph Beyene, Claire Bombardier

Abstract

While there is some consensus on methods for investigating statistical and methodological heterogeneity, little attention has been paid to clinical aspects of heterogeneity. The objective of this study is to summarize and collate suggested methods for investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 203 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 2%
Germany 2 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Unknown 195 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 23%
Researcher 26 13%
Student > Bachelor 26 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 11%
Other 15 7%
Other 37 18%
Unknown 31 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 13%
Social Sciences 17 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 6%
Mathematics 7 3%
Other 30 15%
Unknown 45 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 10 December 2018.
All research outputs
#5,427,923
of 20,568,640 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#857
of 1,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,225
of 141,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,568,640 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,837 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 141,865 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 74% 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