↓ Skip to main content

Meta-analysis and The Cochrane Collaboration: 20 years of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, November 2013
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
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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.
Title
Meta-analysis and The Cochrane Collaboration: 20 years of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group
Published in
Systematic Reviews, November 2013
DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-2-80
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanne E McKenzie, Georgia Salanti, Steff C Lewis, Douglas G Altman

Abstract

The Statistical Methods Group has played a pivotal role in The Cochrane Collaboration over the past 20 years. The Statistical Methods Group has determined the direction of statistical methods used within Cochrane reviews, developed guidance for these methods, provided training, and continued to discuss and consider new and controversial issues in meta-analysis. The contribution of Statistical Methods Group members to the meta-analysis literature has been extensive and has helped to shape the wider meta-analysis landscape.In this paper, marking the 20th anniversary of The Cochrane Collaboration, we reflect on the history of the Statistical Methods Group, beginning in 1993 with the identification of aspects of statistical synthesis for which consensus was lacking about the best approach. We highlight some landmark methodological developments that Statistical Methods Group members have contributed to in the field of meta-analysis. We discuss how the Group implements and disseminates statistical methods within The Cochrane Collaboration. Finally, we consider the importance of robust statistical methodology for Cochrane systematic reviews, note research gaps, and reflect on the challenges that the Statistical Methods Group faces in its future direction.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Spain 2 3%
Unknown 56 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 18%
Student > Master 11 18%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 12%
Other 4 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 15 25%
Unknown 8 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 33%
Psychology 3 5%
Environmental Science 3 5%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 19 32%
Unknown 10 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 05 December 2013.
All research outputs
#13,031,458
of 23,485,953 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,354
of 2,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,723
of 310,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#14
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,485,953 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,040 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 310,247 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.