| Title |
Network meta-analysis on the log-hazard scale, combining count and hazard ratio statistics accounting for multi-arm trials: A tutorial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-10-54 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Beth S Woods, Neil Hawkins, David A Scott |
| Abstract |
Data on survival endpoints are usually summarised using either hazard ratio, cumulative number of events, or median survival statistics. Network meta-analysis, an extension of traditional pairwise meta-analysis, is typically based on a single statistic. In this case, studies which do not report the chosen statistic are excluded from the analysis which may introduce bias. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 121 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 28 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 12 | 9% |
| Other | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 29 | 23% |
| Unknown | 19 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 47 | 37% |
| Mathematics | 11 | 9% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 8 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 19 | 15% |
| Unknown | 32 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 01 June 2023.
All research outputs
#2,904,325
of 23,339,727 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#455
of 2,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,266
of 97,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#3
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,339,727 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,060 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 done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 97,363 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 72% of its contemporaries.