| Title |
Appropriate statistical methods for analysing partially nested randomised controlled trials with continuous outcomes: a simulation study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, October 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-018-0559-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jane Candlish, M. Dawn Teare, Munyaradzi Dimairo, Laura Flight, Laura Mandefield, Stephen J. Walters |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 | 10 | 77% |
| United States | 2 | 15% |
| Unknown | 1 | 8% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 54% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 23% |
| Scientists | 3 | 23% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 18% |
| Unknown | 10 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 4 | 12% |
| Mathematics | 3 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 9% |
| Psychology | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 24% |
| Unknown | 11 | 32% |
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 16 March 2022.
All research outputs
#3,275,117
of 23,347,114 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#512
of 2,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,995
of 346,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#23
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,347,114 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,059 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 346,980 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 80% 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 61% of its contemporaries.