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 |
The Number of Patients and Events Required to Limit the Risk of Overestimation of Intervention Effects in Meta-Analysis—A Simulation Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, October 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0025491 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kristian Thorlund, Georgina Imberger, Michael Walsh, Rong Chu, Christian Gluud, Jørn Wetterslev, Gordon Guyatt, Philip J. Devereaux, Lehana Thabane |
| Abstract |
Meta-analyses including a limited number of patients and events are prone to yield overestimated intervention effect estimates. While many assume bias is the cause of overestimation, theoretical considerations suggest that random error may be an equal or more frequent cause. The independent impact of random error on meta-analyzed intervention effects has not previously been explored. It has been suggested that surpassing the optimal information size (i.e., the required meta-analysis sample size) provides sufficient protection against overestimation due to random error, but this claim has not yet been validated. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 86% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Peru | 1 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Denmark | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 79 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 14% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 21% |
| Unknown | 16 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 44% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Psychology | 3 | 3% |
| Mathematics | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Unknown | 24 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 September 2021.
All research outputs
#2,698,928
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#33,858
of 202,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,379
of 140,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#369
of 2,569 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 202,084 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 140,838 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,569 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.