↓ Skip to main content

Undue reliance on I 2 in assessing heterogeneity may mislead

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
406 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
150 Mendeley
citeulike
4 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
Undue reliance on I 2 in assessing heterogeneity may mislead
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2008
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-8-79
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gerta Rücker, Guido Schwarzer, James R Carpenter, Martin Schumacher

Abstract

The heterogeneity statistic I(2), interpreted as the percentage of variability due to heterogeneity between studies rather than sampling error, depends on precision, that is, the size of the studies included.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
United Kingdom 3 2%
Netherlands 3 2%
Germany 2 1%
Chile 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 133 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 44 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 22%
Student > Master 20 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 26 17%
Unknown 8 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 47%
Mathematics 18 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Psychology 6 4%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Other 24 16%
Unknown 19 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 17 February 2020.
All research outputs
#3,565,047
of 15,055,678 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#498
of 1,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,949
of 192,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,055,678 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,403 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 192,500 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them