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 |
Statistical Analysis of Individual Participant Data Meta-Analyses: A Comparison of Methods and Recommendations for Practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0046042 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gavin B. Stewart, Douglas G. Altman, Lisa M. Askie, Lelia Duley, Mark C. Simmonds, Lesley A. Stewart |
| Abstract |
Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses that obtain "raw" data from studies rather than summary data typically adopt a "two-stage" approach to analysis whereby IPD within trials generate summary measures, which are combined using standard meta-analytical methods. Recently, a range of "one-stage" approaches which combine all individual participant data in a single meta-analysis have been suggested as providing a more powerful and flexible approach. However, they are more complex to implement and require statistical support. This study uses a dataset to compare "two-stage" and "one-stage" models of varying complexity, to ascertain whether results obtained from the approaches differ in a clinically meaningful way. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 8 | 62% |
| Canada | 2 | 15% |
| Mexico | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 2 | 15% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 85% |
| Scientists | 2 | 15% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 195 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 1% |
| Italy | 2 | 1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | 2% |
| Unknown | 176 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 45 | 23% |
| Researcher | 42 | 22% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 12 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 42 | 22% |
| Unknown | 32 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 58 | 30% |
| Psychology | 17 | 9% |
| Mathematics | 17 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 8% |
| Sports and Recreations | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 37 | 19% |
| Unknown | 45 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 08 May 2018.
All research outputs
#3,638,768
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#47,124
of 224,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,928
of 195,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#727
of 4,556 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 195,342 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,556 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.