Title |
Reporting guidelines for modelling studies
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2012
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-12-168 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Carol Bennett, Douglas G Manuel |
Abstract |
Modelling studies are used widely to help inform decisions about health care and policy and their use is increasing. However, in order for modelling to gain strength as a tool for health policy, it is critical that key model factors are transparent so that users of models can have a clear understanding of the model and its limitations.Reporting guidelines are evidence-based tools that specify minimum criteria for authors to report their research such that readers can both critically appraise and interpret study findings. This study was conducted to determine whether there is an unmet need for population modelling reporting guidelines. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Switzerland | 1 | 17% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
United States | 1 | 17% |
Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
Scientists | 2 | 33% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
Canada | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 92 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 17% |
Researcher | 15 | 16% |
Student > Master | 13 | 14% |
Other | 6 | 6% |
Professor | 5 | 5% |
Other | 17 | 18% |
Unknown | 23 | 24% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 27% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 7% |
Engineering | 4 | 4% |
Social Sciences | 4 | 4% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
Other | 23 | 24% |
Unknown | 27 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 17 May 2021.
All research outputs
#4,897,925
of 24,144,324 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#769
of 2,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,376
of 186,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#8
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,144,324 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,144 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 186,849 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.