↓ Skip to main content

Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Epidemiology, April 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
4 policy sources
twitter
33 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1266 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1397 Mendeley
citeulike
6 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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
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

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.
Mendeley readers

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

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.