| Title |
Risk of bias judgements and strength of conclusions in meta-evidence from the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, April 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-019-1001-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John Delaney, Rebecca Cui, Alexander Engel |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 | 4 | 44% |
| United States | 2 | 22% |
| Spain | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 89% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 13% |
| Researcher | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 13% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 9 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 13% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 11 | 46% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 April 2019.
All research outputs
#5,734,723
of 23,140,503 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#981
of 2,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,716
of 352,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#34
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,140,503 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,013 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 352,672 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.