| Title |
The unit of analysis error in studies about physicians’ patient care behavior
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, November 1992
|
| DOI | 10.1007/bf02599201 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
George W. Divine, J. Trig Brown, Linda M. Frazier |
| Abstract |
To estimate the frequency with which patients are incorrectly used as the unit of analysis among statistical calculations in published studies of physicians' patient care behavior. Retrospective review of studies published during 1980-1990. ARTICLES: 54 articles retrieved by a computerized search using medical subject headings for physicians and study characteristics. Article selection criteria included the requirement that the physician should have been the correct unit of analysis. Presence of the error was determined by consensus using published criteria. The error was present in 38 articles (70%). The number of study physicians was reported in 35 articles (65%). The error was found in 57% of articles that reported the number of study physicians and in 95% of those that did not. The error rate was not lower among articles published more recently nor among those published in journals with higher rates of article citations in the medical literature. The unit of analysis error occurs frequently and can generate artificially low p values. Failure to report the number of study physicians can be a clue that this type of error has been made. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 30 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 16% |
| Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 16% |
| Unknown | 8 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 26% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 16% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 10 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 March 2014.
All research outputs
#7,943,894
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#4,251
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,648
of 20,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 20,040 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them