↓ Skip to main content

Systematic reviews need to consider applicability to disadvantaged populations: inter-rater agreement for a health equity plausibility algorithm

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2012
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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
27 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
Systematic reviews need to consider applicability to disadvantaged populations: inter-rater agreement for a health equity plausibility algorithm
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-12-187
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vivian Welch, Kevin Brand, Elizabeth Kristjansson, Janet Smylie, George Wells, Peter Tugwell

Abstract

Systematic reviews have been challenged to consider effects on disadvantaged groups. A priori specification of subgroup analyses is recommended to increase the credibility of these analyses. This study aimed to develop and assess inter-rater agreement for an algorithm for systematic review authors to predict whether differences in effect measures are likely for disadvantaged populations relative to advantaged populations (only relative effect measures were addressed).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Colombia 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 45 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 20%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Other 5 10%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 3 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 43%
Social Sciences 6 12%
Psychology 5 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 9 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 24 March 2013.
All research outputs
#849,777
of 13,309,606 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#121
of 1,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,473
of 250,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#5
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,309,606 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,229 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 250,784 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.