↓ Skip to main content

Methodological criteria for the assessment of moderators in systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials: a consensus study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Methodological criteria for the assessment of moderators in systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials: a consensus study
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-11-14
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tamar Pincus, Clare Miles, Robert Froud, Martin Underwood, Dawn Carnes, Stephanie JC Taylor

Abstract

Current methodological guidelines provide advice about the assessment of sub-group analysis within RCTs, but do not specify explicit criteria for assessment. Our objective was to provide researchers with a set of criteria that will facilitate the grading of evidence for moderators, in systematic reviews.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
United Kingdom 2 3%
Norway 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 59 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 23%
Researcher 13 20%
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 15 23%
Unknown 3 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 29%
Psychology 15 23%
Social Sciences 7 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Computer Science 3 5%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 7 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 October 2017.
All research outputs
#6,309,558
of 12,016,495 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#536
of 1,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,252
of 198,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#14
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,016,495 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,012 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 198,878 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 61% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.