↓ Skip to main content

Emergent approaches to the meta-analysis of multiple heterogeneous complex interventions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2015
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 (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Emergent approaches to the meta-analysis of multiple heterogeneous complex interventions
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12874-015-0040-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

G. J. Melendez-Torres, Chris Bonell, James Thomas

Abstract

Multiple interventions meta-analysis has been recommended in the methodological literature as a tool for evidence synthesis when a heterogeneous set of interventions is included in the same review-and, more recently, when a heterogeneous set of complex interventions is included. However, there is little guidance on the use of this method with complex interventions. This article suggests two approaches to model complexity and heterogeneity through this method. 'Clinically meaningful units' groups interventions by modality or similar theory of change, whereas 'components and dismantling' separates out interventions into combinations of components and either groups interventions by the combination of components they demonstrate or extracts effects for each identified component and, possibly, interactions between components. Future work in systematic review methodology should aim to understand how to develop taxonomies of components or theories of change that are internally relevant to the studies in these multiple interventions meta-analyses. Despite little meaningful prior guidance to its use in this context, multiple interventions meta-analysis has the potential to be a useful tool for synthesising heterogeneous sets of complex interventions. Researchers should choose an approach in accordance with their specific aims in their systematic review.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Librarian 1 5%
Professor 1 5%
Researcher 1 5%
Unknown 17 77%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Mathematics 1 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 5%
Engineering 1 5%
Unknown 19 86%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 24 February 2017.
All research outputs
#1,317,669
of 9,107,880 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#218
of 921 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,918
of 224,953 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#4
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,107,880 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 921 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 224,953 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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 73% of its contemporaries.