| 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). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 5 | 22% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 17% |
| Chile | 3 | 13% |
| United States | 2 | 9% |
| Mexico | 1 | 4% |
| Colombia | 1 | 4% |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 6 | 26% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 65% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 26% |
| Scientists | 2 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| Colombia | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 62 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 15% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 15 | 23% |
| Unknown | 11 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 36% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 11% |
| Psychology | 5 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 17 | 26% |
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 14 December 2022.
All research outputs
#2,018,030
of 25,382,035 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#265
of 2,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,028
of 284,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#4
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,035 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,267 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 284,492 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 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.