↓ Skip to main content

The interpretation of systematic reviews with meta-analyses: an objective or subjective process?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, May 2008
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

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
citeulike
8 CiteULike
Title
The interpretation of systematic reviews with meta-analyses: an objective or subjective process?
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, May 2008
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-8-19
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ian Shrier, Jean-François Boivin, Robert W Platt, Russell J Steele, James M Brophy, Franco Carnevale, Mark J Eisenberg, Andrea Furlan, Ritsuko Kakuma, Mary Ellen Macdonald, Louise Pilote, Michel Rossignol

Abstract

Discrepancies between the conclusions of different meta-analyses (quantitative syntheses of systematic reviews) are often ascribed to methodological differences. The objective of this study was to determine the discordance in interpretations when meta-analysts are presented with identical data.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 2%
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
France 2 2%
Portugal 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 81 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 18%
Professor > Associate Professor 16 18%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Master 11 12%
Professor 7 8%
Other 29 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 43%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 12%
Computer Science 9 10%
Unspecified 9 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Other 18 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 16 April 2017.
All research outputs
#829,178
of 13,309,606 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#52
of 1,202 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#802,084
of 12,665,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#52
of 1,201 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 1,202 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 12,665,944 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 1,201 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.