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 |
How should we evaluate the risk of bias of physical therapy trials?: a psychometric and meta-epidemiological approach towards developing guidelines for the design, conduct, and reporting of RCTs in Physical Therapy (PT) area: a study protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-2-88 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Susan Armijo-Olivo, Jorge Fuentes, Todd Rogers, Lisa Hartling, Humam Saltaji, Greta G Cummings |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 50 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
| Researcher | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 18 | 34% |
| Unknown | 10 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 23% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 13 | 25% |
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 17 January 2020.
All research outputs
#15,481,888
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,598
of 2,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,580
of 203,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#22
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 203,909 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.