| Title |
Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.mr000035.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthew J Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Jamie Kirkham, Kerry Dwan, Sharon Kramer, Sally Green, Andrew Forbes |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 67 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 | 8 | 12% |
| Canada | 5 | 7% |
| United States | 5 | 7% |
| Australia | 4 | 6% |
| Japan | 3 | 4% |
| Germany | 2 | 3% |
| Spain | 2 | 3% |
| Chile | 1 | 1% |
| Denmark | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 35 | 52% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 45 | 67% |
| Scientists | 12 | 18% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 307 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 2 | <1% |
| Unknown | 294 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 54 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 36 | 12% |
| Researcher | 34 | 11% |
| Other | 22 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 7% |
| Other | 71 | 23% |
| Unknown | 70 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 116 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 30 | 10% |
| Psychology | 11 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 3% |
| Other | 42 | 14% |
| Unknown | 89 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 55. 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 12 August 2021.
All research outputs
#791,841
of 25,848,962 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,426
of 13,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,101
of 266,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#19
of 229 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,848,962 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,147 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 266,600 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 229 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 91% of its contemporaries.