↓ Skip to main content

Using data from multiple studies to develop a child growth correlation matrix

Overview of attention for article published in Statistics in Medicine, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 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
Using data from multiple studies to develop a child growth correlation matrix
Published in
Statistics in Medicine, April 2018
DOI 10.1002/sim.7696
Pubmed ID
Authors

Craig Anderson, Luo Xiao, William Checkley

Abstract

In many countries, the monitoring of child growth does not occur in a regular manner, and instead, we may have to rely on sporadic observations that are subject to substantial measurement error. In these countries, it can be difficult to identify patterns of poor growth, and faltering children may miss out on essential health interventions. The contribution of this paper is to provide a framework for pooling together multiple datasets, thus allowing us to overcome the issue of sparse data and provide improved estimates of growth. We use data from multiple longitudinal growth studies to construct a common correlation matrix that can be used in estimation and prediction of child growth. We propose a novel 2-stage approach: In stage 1, we construct a raw matrix via a set of univariate meta-analyses, and in stage 2, we smooth this raw matrix to obtain a more realistic correlation matrix. The methodology is illustrated using data from 16 child growth studies from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's Healthy Birth Growth and Development knowledge integration project and identifies strong correlation for both height and weight between the ages of 4 and 12 years. We use a case study to provide an example of how this matrix can be used to help compute growth measures.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

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 %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 21%
Student > Master 2 8%
Unspecified 1 4%
Lecturer 1 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 6 25%
Unknown 8 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 17%
Mathematics 2 8%
Social Sciences 2 8%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 7 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 April 2018.
All research outputs
#15,506,823
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from Statistics in Medicine
#2,260
of 3,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,104
of 326,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Statistics in Medicine
#24
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 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 3,809 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 326,650 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.