↓ Skip to main content

Evidence-based mapping of design heterogeneity prior to meta-analysis: a systematic review and evidence synthesis

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
25 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Evidence-based mapping of design heterogeneity prior to meta-analysis: a systematic review and evidence synthesis
Published in
Systematic Reviews, July 2014
DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-3-80
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michelle D Althuis, Douglas L Weed, Cara L Frankenfeld

Abstract

Assessment of design heterogeneity conducted prior to meta-analysis is infrequently reported; it is often presented post hoc to explain statistical heterogeneity. However, design heterogeneity determines the mix of included studies and how they are analyzed in a meta-analysis, which in turn can importantly influence the results. The goal of this work is to introduce ways to improve the assessment and reporting of design heterogeneity prior to statistical summarization of epidemiologic studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 8%
Spain 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 43 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 22%
Student > Master 10 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 2 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 42%
Social Sciences 6 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 4 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 11 September 2014.
All research outputs
#897,452
of 14,668,766 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#174
of 1,295 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,642
of 191,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,668,766 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,295 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 191,637 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 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