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 |
Dichotomisation of a continuous outcome and effect on meta-analyses: illustration of the distributional approach using the outcome birthweight
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-3-63 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mercy Ofuya, Odile Sauzet, Janet L Peacock |
| Abstract |
Power and precision are greater in meta-analyses than individual study analyses. However, dichotomisation of continuous outcomes in certain studies poses a problem as estimates from primary studies can only be pooled if they have a common outcome. Meta-analyses may include pooled summaries of either or both the continuous and dichotomous forms, and potentially have a different combination of studies for each depending on whether the outcome was dichotomised in the primary studies or not. This dual-outcome issue can lead to loss of power and/or selection bias. In this study we aimed to illustrate how dichotomisation of a continuous outcome in primary studies may result in biased estimates of pooled risk and odds ratios in meta-analysis using secondary analyses of published meta-analyses with the outcome, birthweight, which is commonly analysed both as continuous, and dichotomous (low birthweight: birthweight < 2,500 g). |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 39% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 17% |
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 1 | 6% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 50% |
| Psychology | 4 | 22% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 1 | 6% |
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 02 October 2014.
All research outputs
#13,409,581
of 22,757,090 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,417
of 1,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,239
of 228,693 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#18
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,090 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,990 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 228,693 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.