| Title |
Consensus-based recommendations for investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-13-106 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joel J Gagnier, Hal Morgenstern, Doug G Altman, Jesse Berlin, Stephanie Chang, Peter McCulloch, Xin Sun, David Moher, for the Ann Arbor Clinical Heterogeneity Consensus Group |
| Abstract |
Critics of systematic reviews have argued that these studies often fail to inform clinical decision making because their results are far too general, that the data are sparse, such that findings cannot be applied to individual patients or for other decision making. While there is some consensus on methods for investigating statistical and methodological heterogeneity, little attention has been paid to clinical aspects of heterogeneity. Clinical heterogeneity, true effect heterogeneity, can be defined as variability among studies in the participants, the types or timing of outcome measurements, and the intervention characteristics. The objective of this project was to develop recommendations for investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 2 | 40% |
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Pakistan | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 89 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 12% |
| Researcher | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 10% |
| Other | 21 | 23% |
| Unknown | 14 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 42 | 45% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 14% |
| Psychology | 6 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 16 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 July 2023.
All research outputs
#5,993,033
of 24,176,645 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#838
of 2,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,570
of 204,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#8
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,176,645 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,148 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 60% 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 204,116 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.