↓ Skip to main content

Reporting quality of statistical methods in surgical observational studies: protocol for systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Reporting quality of statistical methods in surgical observational studies: protocol for systematic review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, June 2014
DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-3-70
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert Wu, Peter Glen, Tim Ramsay, Guillaume Martel

Abstract

Observational studies dominate the surgical literature. Statistical adjustment is an important strategy to account for confounders in observational studies. Research has shown that published articles are often poor in statistical quality, which may jeopardize their conclusions. The Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature (SAMPL) guidelines have been published to help establish standards for statistical reporting. This study will seek to determine whether the quality of statistical adjustment and the reporting of these methods are adequate in surgical observational studies. We hypothesize that incomplete reporting will be found in all surgical observational studies, and that the quality and reporting of these methods will be of lower quality in surgical journals when compared with medical journals. Finally, this work will seek to identify predictors of high-quality reporting.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 28%
Student > Master 6 19%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Professor 3 9%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 1 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Computer Science 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 7 22%
Unknown 4 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 June 2014.
All research outputs
#3,057,173
of 4,507,509 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#286
of 348 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,444
of 107,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#26
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,507,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 348 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 107,332 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.