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 |
Assessing Risk of Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials for Autism Spectrum Disorder
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychiatry, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00265 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paola Matiko Martins Okuda, Cheryl Klaiman, Jessica Bradshaw, Morganne Reid, Hugo Cogo-Moreira |
| Abstract |
To determine construct validity and reliability indicators of the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool in the context of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate a unidimensional model consisting of 9 RoB categorical indicators evaluated across 94 RCTs addressing interventions for ASD. Only five of the nine original RoB items returned good fit indices and so were retained in the analysis. Only one of this five had very high factor loadings. The remaining four indicators had more measurement error than common variance with the RoB latent factor. Together, the five indicators showed poor reliability (ω = 0.687; 95% CI: 0.613-0.761). Although the Cochrane model of RoB for ASD exhibited good fit indices, the majorities of the items have more residual variance than common variance and, therefore, did not adequately capture the RoB in ASD intervention trials. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 29% |
| Mexico | 1 | 14% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 14% |
| Spain | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 14% |
| Researcher | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 17% |
| Psychology | 4 | 14% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 9 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 18 December 2017.
All research outputs
#8,371,230
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#3,992
of 12,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,484
of 448,226 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#39
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,873 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 448,226 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 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 60% of its contemporaries.