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 |
How to compare instrumental variable and conventional regression analyses using negative controls and bias plots
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Epidemiology, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1093/ije/dyx014 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Neil M. Davies, Kyla H. Thomas, Amy E. Taylor, Gemma M.J. Taylor, Richard M. Martin, Marcus R. Munafò, Frank Windmeijer |
| Abstract |
There is increasing interest in the use of instrumental variable analysis to overcome unmeasured confounding in observational pharmacoepidemiological studies. This is partly because instrumental variable analyses are potentially less biased than conventional regression analyses. However, instrumental variable analyses are less precise, and regulators and clinicians find it difficult to interpret conflicting evidence from instrumental variable compared with conventional regression analyses. In this paper, we describe three techniques to assess which approach (instrumental variable versus conventional regression analyses) is least biased. These techniques are negative control outcomes, negative control populations and tests of covariate balance. We illustrate these methods using an analysis of the effects of smoking cessation therapies (varenicline) prescribed in primary care. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 | 3 | 21% |
| United States | 2 | 14% |
| China | 1 | 7% |
| Spain | 1 | 7% |
| Japan | 1 | 7% |
| Sweden | 1 | 7% |
| Chile | 1 | 7% |
| Australia | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 3 | 21% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 50% |
| Scientists | 3 | 21% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 21% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 83 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 20 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 18% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 5% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 16 | 19% |
| Unknown | 18 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 34% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 17% |
| Unknown | 24 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 30 March 2021.
All research outputs
#2,043,719
of 24,577,646 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Epidemiology
#1,047
of 5,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,013
of 314,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Epidemiology
#22
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,577,646 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,809 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 314,542 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 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 64% of its contemporaries.