| Title |
True and false positive rates for different criteria of evaluating statistical evidence from clinical trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-019-0865-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Don van Ravenzwaaij, John P. A. Ioannidis |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 | 10% |
| United States | 2 | 6% |
| France | 2 | 6% |
| Luxembourg | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Lebanon | 1 | 3% |
| Denmark | 1 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 18 | 58% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 19 | 61% |
| Scientists | 9 | 29% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 17% |
| Researcher | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 12 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 4 | 11% |
| Psychology | 4 | 11% |
| Mathematics | 2 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 16 | 46% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 22 March 2020.
All research outputs
#1,349,479
of 25,271,884 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#149
of 2,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,757
of 473,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#4
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,271,884 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,256 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 473,314 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.