↓ Skip to main content

Blinded versus unblinded assessments of risk of bias in studies included in a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2011
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 (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Blinded versus unblinded assessments of risk of bias in studies included in a systematic review
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.mr000025.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kate Morissette, Andrea C Tricco, Tanya Horsley, Maggie H Chen, David Moher

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
New Zealand 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 48 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 21%
Researcher 10 19%
Student > Postgraduate 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 6 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 45%
Social Sciences 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Psychology 3 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 9 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 22 July 2020.
All research outputs
#1,352,765
of 16,636,435 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,542
of 11,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,478
of 237,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#100
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,636,435 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,552 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 237,639 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 256 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 61% of its contemporaries.