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 |
A large‐scale assessment of temporal trends in meta‐analyses using systematic review reports from the Cochrane Library
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Research Synthesis Methods, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1002/jrsm.1238 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas R. Fanshawe, Luke F. Shaw, Graeme T. Spence |
| Abstract |
Previous studies suggest that many systematic reviews contain meta-analyses that display temporal trends, such as the first study's result being more extreme than later studies' or a drift in the pooled estimate. We assessed the extent and characteristics of temporal trends using all Cochrane intervention reports published 2008-2012. We selected the largest meta-analysis within each report and analysed trends using methods including a Z-test (first versus subsequent estimates); generalised least squares; and cumulative sum charts. Predictors considered include meta-analysis size and review group. Of 1288 meta-analyses containing at least 4 studies, the point estimate from the first study was more extreme and in the same direction as the pooled estimate in 738 (57%), with a statistically significant difference (first versus subsequent) in 165 (13%). Generalised least squares indicated trends in 717 (56%); 18% of fixed effects analyses had at least one violation of cumulative sum limits. For some methods, meta-analysis size was associated with temporal patterns and use of a random effects model, but there was no consistent association with review group. All results suggest that more meta-analyses demonstrate temporal patterns than would be expected by chance. Hence, assuming the standard meta-analysis model without temporal trend is sometimes inappropriate. Factors associated with trends are likely to be context specific. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 | 33% |
| Argentina | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 12 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 25% |
| Librarian | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 8% |
| Professor | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 25% |
| Psychology | 2 | 17% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 8% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 27 June 2017.
All research outputs
#3,339,538
of 24,362,308 outputs
Outputs from Research Synthesis Methods
#178
of 509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,967
of 314,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Synthesis Methods
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,362,308 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 509 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 314,728 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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 50% of its contemporaries.