↓ Skip to main content

Use of network meta-analysis in systematic reviews: a survey of authors

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Use of network meta-analysis in systematic reviews: a survey of authors
Published in
Systematic Reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0174-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew W. Lee

Abstract

The reporting of network meta-analysis in systematic reviews has increased rapidly since 2009. This qualitative study was undertaken to identify authors' perceptions of the use of these methods and of what standards for conduct and reporting should apply. This is a survey of authors of systematic reviews reporting network meta-analysis. The response rate was 32 % of the authors contacted, with these authors responsible for 34 % of the fully published systematic reviews identified within the period searched. Almost all authors would use the method again. Elements of reporting standards were proposed. Responses revealed some tensions between the view that use of network meta-analysis should be more easily accessible, particularly in the form of software tools, and concern that there is some inappropriate use of the methods, which wider use and greater accessibility could exacerbate. Authors demonstrated strong support for adoption of standards for conduct and reporting. The elements of reporting standards proposed are consistent with those included in the 2015 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension statement. Adoption of standards for conduct and reporting will be a significant step towards clarifying what is appropriate use of the methods and what is not. This should be followed by the development of a critical appraisal tool to support end users of systematic reviews reporting network meta-analysis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 19%
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 8 26%
Unknown 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Computer Science 2 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 5 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 11 April 2016.
All research outputs
#3,925,374
of 16,530,080 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#690
of 1,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,132
of 345,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#6
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,530,080 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,481 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 345,376 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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 62% of its contemporaries.