↓ Skip to main content

Investigation of continuous effect modifiers in a meta-analysis on higher versus lower PEEP in patients requiring mechanical ventilation - protocol of the ICEM study

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
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
Investigation of continuous effect modifiers in a meta-analysis on higher versus lower PEEP in patients requiring mechanical ventilation - protocol of the ICEM study
Published in
Systematic Reviews, May 2014
DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-3-46
Pubmed ID
Abstract

Categorizing an inherently continuous predictor in prognostic analyses raises several critical methodological issues: dependence of the statistical significance on the number and position of the chosen cut-point(s), loss of statistical power, and faulty interpretation of the results if a non-linear association is incorrectly assumed to be linear. This also applies to a therapeutic context where investigators of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are interested in interactions between treatment assignment and one or more continuous predictors.

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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
Unknown 23 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 29%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Other 5 21%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 13%
Computer Science 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Unknown 5 21%

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 29 January 2015.
All research outputs
#3,325,709
of 4,689,255 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#317
of 376 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,456
of 163,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#27
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,689,255 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 376 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 163,391 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.