| Title |
An evaluation of the quality of statistical design and analysis of published medical research: results from a systematic survey of general orthopaedic journals
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-12-60 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nick R Parsons, Charlotte L Price, Richard Hiskens, Juul Achten, Matthew L Costa |
| Abstract |
The application of statistics in reported research in trauma and orthopaedic surgery has become ever more important and complex. Despite the extensive use of statistical analysis, it is still a subject which is often not conceptually well understood, resulting in clear methodological flaws and inadequate reporting in many papers. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 States | 1 | 50% |
| India | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 65 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
| Researcher | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 22% |
| Unknown | 15 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 30% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 19% |
| Unknown | 20 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 February 2022.
All research outputs
#14,382,892
of 23,033,713 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,390
of 2,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,329
of 164,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#16
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,033,713 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,030 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 164,149 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 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.