↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
Monte Carlo Simulations Comparing Fisher Exact Test and Unequal Variances t Test for Analysis of Differences Between Groups in Brief Hospital Lengths of Stay
Published in
Anesthesia and analgesia, December 2017
DOI 10.1213/ane.0000000000002428
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

We examined type I and II error rates for analysis of (1) mean hospital length of stay (LOS) versus (2) percentage of hospital LOS that are overnight. These 2 end points are suitable for when LOS is treated as a secondary economic end point. We repeatedly resampled LOS for 5052 discharges of thoracoscopic wedge resections and lung lobectomy at 26 hospitals. Unequal variances t test (Welch method) and Fisher exact test both were conservative (ie, type I error rate less than nominal level). The Wilcoxon rank sum test was included as a comparator; the type I error rates did not differ from the nominal level of 0.05 or 0.01. Fisher exact test was more powerful than the unequal variances t test at detecting differences among hospitals; estimated odds ratio for obtaining P < .05 with Fisher exact test versus unequal variances t test = 1.94, with 95% confidence interval 1.31-3.01. Fisher exact test and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney had comparable statistical power in terms of differentiating LOS between hospitals. For studies with LOS to be used as a secondary end point of economic interest, there is currently considerable interest in the planned analysis being for the percentage of patients suitable for ambulatory surgery (ie, hospital LOS equals 0 or 1 midnight). Our results show that there need not be a loss of statistical power when groups are compared using this binary end point, as compared with either Welch method or Wilcoxon rank sum test.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 11%
Researcher 1 11%
Lecturer 1 11%
Unknown 4 44%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 11%
Unknown 5 56%
Attention Score in Context

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 20 November 2017.
All research outputs
#23,308,398
of 34,372,222 outputs
Outputs from Anesthesia and analgesia
#8,413
of 10,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#311,502
of 491,374 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anesthesia and analgesia
#100
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,372,222 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,894 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 491,374 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.