↓ Skip to main content

Network meta-analysis-highly attractive but more methodological research is needed

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, June 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
7 blogs
twitter
31 tweeters
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
187 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
275 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
Network meta-analysis-highly attractive but more methodological research is needed
Published in
BMC Medicine, June 2011
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-9-79
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tianjing Li, Milo A Puhan, Swaroop S Vedula, Sonal Singh, Kay Dickersin

Abstract

Network meta-analysis, in the context of a systematic review, is a meta-analysis in which multiple treatments (that is, three or more) are being compared using both direct comparisons of interventions within randomized controlled trials and indirect comparisons across trials based on a common comparator. To ensure validity of findings from network meta-analyses, the systematic review must be designed rigorously and conducted carefully. Aspects of designing and conducting a systematic review for network meta-analysis include defining the review question, specifying eligibility criteria, searching for and selecting studies, assessing risk of bias and quality of evidence, conducting a network meta-analysis, interpreting and reporting findings. This commentary summarizes the methodologic challenges and research opportunities for network meta-analysis relevant to each aspect of the systematic review process based on discussions at a network meta-analysis methodology meeting we hosted in May 2010 at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Since this commentary reflects the discussion at that meeting, it is not intended to provide an overview of the field.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 275 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 3 1%
United States 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Saudi Arabia 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 258 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 57 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 53 19%
Student > Master 29 11%
Student > Postgraduate 17 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 6%
Other 68 25%
Unknown 34 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 103 37%
Mathematics 19 7%
Psychology 18 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 5%
Social Sciences 14 5%
Other 53 19%
Unknown 53 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 87. 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 September 2020.
All research outputs
#254,876
of 16,019,740 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#218
of 2,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#245,054
of 15,003,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#218
of 2,499 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,019,740 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,500 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 15,003,912 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,499 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.