You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Instrumental variable analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, July 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1093/ndt/gfs310 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vianda S. Stel, Friedo W. Dekker, Carmine Zoccali, Kitty J. Jager |
| Abstract |
The main advantage of the randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the random assignment of treatment that prevents selection by prognosis. Nevertheless, only few RCTs can be performed given their high cost and the difficulties in conducting such studies. Therefore, several analytical methods for removing the effects of selection bias in observational studies have been proposed. The first aim of this paper is to compare three of those methods: the multivariable risk adjustment method, the propensity score risk adjustment method, and the instrumental variable method. The second aim is to compare the results from observational studies using the instrumental variable method with those from RCTs aiming to answer the same study question. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 14% |
| Germany | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 44 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Professor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 8 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 57% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 8 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 29 May 2015.
All research outputs
#6,623,520
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation
#2,450
of 6,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,704
of 165,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation
#18
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,089 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 165,868 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 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 66% of its contemporaries.