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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Graphical Tools for Network Meta-Analysis in STATA
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0076654 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anna Chaimani, Julian P. T. Higgins, Dimitris Mavridis, Panagiota Spyridonos, Georgia Salanti |
| Abstract |
Network meta-analysis synthesizes direct and indirect evidence in a network of trials that compare multiple interventions and has the potential to rank the competing treatments according to the studied outcome. Despite its usefulness network meta-analysis is often criticized for its complexity and for being accessible only to researchers with strong statistical and computational skills. The evaluation of the underlying model assumptions, the statistical technicalities and presentation of the results in a concise and understandable way are all challenging aspects in the network meta-analysis methodology. In this paper we aim to make the methodology accessible to non-statisticians by presenting and explaining a series of graphical tools via worked examples. To this end, we provide a set of STATA routines that can be easily employed to present the evidence base, evaluate the assumptions, fit the network meta-analysis model and interpret its results. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 469 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | <1% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Greece | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 460 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 92 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 65 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 55 | 12% |
| Other | 36 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 24 | 5% |
| Other | 113 | 24% |
| Unknown | 84 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 183 | 39% |
| Mathematics | 21 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 18 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 3% |
| Other | 92 | 20% |
| Unknown | 121 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 24 January 2023.
All research outputs
#4,406,002
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#53,578
of 225,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,869
of 224,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,177
of 5,110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 225,486 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 224,557 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.