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 |
Meta-research metrics matter: letter regarding article “indirect tolerability comparison of Deutetrabenazine and Tetrabenazine for Huntington disease”
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Clinical Movement Disorders, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40734-017-0067-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Filipe B. Rodrigues, Gonçalo S. Duarte, João Costa, Joaquim J. Ferreira, Edward J. Wild |
| Abstract |
Here we discuss the report by Claassen and colleagues describing an indirect treatment comparison between tetrabenazine and deutetrabenazine for chorea in Huntington's disease using individual patient data. We note the potential for discrepancies in apparently statistically significant findings, due to the rank reversal phenomenon. We provide some cautionary observations and suggestions concerning the limitations of indirect comparisons and the low likelihood that good quality evidence will become available to guide clinical decision comparing these two agents. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 25% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 13% |
| Librarian | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 25% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 19% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 38% |
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 27 November 2017.
All research outputs
#22,148,419
of 24,715,720 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Movement Disorders
#57
of 65 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#384,348
of 448,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Movement Disorders
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,715,720 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 65 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 448,457 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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.