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 |
Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography
|
---|---|
Published in |
International Journal of Epidemiology, April 2007
|
DOI | 10.1093/ije/dym018 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Simon Sanderson, Iain D Tatt, Julian PT Higgins |
Abstract |
Assessing quality and susceptibility to bias is essential when interpreting primary research and conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Tools for assessing quality in clinical trials are well-described but much less attention has been given to similar tools for observational epidemiological studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 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 | 7 | 21% |
Australia | 3 | 9% |
United States | 2 | 6% |
France | 2 | 6% |
Spain | 1 | 3% |
Philippines | 1 | 3% |
Denmark | 1 | 3% |
Norway | 1 | 3% |
Colombia | 1 | 3% |
Other | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 13 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 21 | 64% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 15% |
Scientists | 5 | 15% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,397 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 17 | 1% |
United States | 10 | <1% |
Netherlands | 5 | <1% |
Spain | 5 | <1% |
Australia | 5 | <1% |
Canada | 4 | <1% |
Peru | 3 | <1% |
Norway | 2 | <1% |
Brazil | 2 | <1% |
Other | 23 | 2% |
Unknown | 1321 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 262 | 19% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 259 | 19% |
Researcher | 170 | 12% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 102 | 7% |
Student > Bachelor | 100 | 7% |
Other | 323 | 23% |
Unknown | 181 | 13% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 559 | 40% |
Psychology | 138 | 10% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 107 | 8% |
Social Sciences | 86 | 6% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 41 | 3% |
Other | 216 | 15% |
Unknown | 250 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 26 December 2023.
All research outputs
#1,133,659
of 25,500,206 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Epidemiology
#547
of 5,903 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,008
of 86,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Epidemiology
#8
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,500,206 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,903 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 86,246 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.