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 |
Adjustment for reporting bias in network meta-analysis of antidepressant trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-12-150 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ludovic Trinquart, Gilles Chatellier, Philippe Ravaud |
| Abstract |
Network meta-analysis (NMA), a generalization of conventional MA, allows for assessing the relative effectiveness of multiple interventions. Reporting bias is a major threat to the validity of MA and NMA. Numerous methods are available to assess the robustness of MA results to reporting bias. We aimed to extend such methods to NMA. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 44 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 16% |
| Professor | 7 | 14% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 15 | 31% |
| Unknown | 7 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 33% |
| Mathematics | 8 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 12 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 23 August 2015.
All research outputs
#17,489,487
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,716
of 2,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,379
of 191,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#18
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,304 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 191,537 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.