↓ Skip to main content

Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist

Overview of attention for article published in Quality of Life Research, July 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1492 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1004 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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.
Title
Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist
Published in
Quality of Life Research, July 2011
DOI 10.1007/s11136-011-9960-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline B. Terwee, Lidwine B. Mokkink, Dirk L. Knol, Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo, Lex M. Bouter, Henrica C. W. de Vet

Abstract

The COSMIN checklist is a standardized tool for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties. It contains 9 boxes, each dealing with one measurement property, with 5-18 items per box about design aspects and statistical methods. Our aim was to develop a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist to calculate quality scores per measurement property when using the checklist in systematic reviews of measurement properties.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,004 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 6 <1%
Netherlands 3 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Other 6 <1%
Unknown 978 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 182 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 165 16%
Researcher 113 11%
Student > Bachelor 81 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 73 7%
Other 203 20%
Unknown 187 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 287 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 169 17%
Psychology 86 9%
Social Sciences 38 4%
Sports and Recreations 35 3%
Other 147 15%
Unknown 242 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 03 December 2018.
All research outputs
#2,247,957
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Quality of Life Research
#136
of 3,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,206
of 130,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quality of Life Research
#1
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,111 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 130,072 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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 96% of its contemporaries.