| Title |
Individual patient data network meta-analysis using either restricted mean survival time difference or hazard ratios: is there a difference? A case study on locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinomas
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, April 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-019-0984-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
C. Petit, P. Blanchard, JP. Pignon, B. Lueza |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 3 | 60% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 19% |
| Researcher | 2 | 13% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 13% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 13% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 06 May 2020.
All research outputs
#3,619,631
of 23,142,049 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#656
of 2,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,451
of 350,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#14
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,142,049 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th 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 66% 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 350,948 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 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 71% of its contemporaries.