↓ Skip to main content

Methods for calculating confidence and credible intervals for the residual between-study variance in random effects meta-regression models

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Methods for calculating confidence and credible intervals for the residual between-study variance in random effects meta-regression models
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-14-103
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dan Jackson, Rebecca Turner, Kirsty Rhodes, Wolfgang Viechtbauer

Abstract

Meta-regression is becoming increasingly used to model study level covariate effects. However this type of statistical analysis presents many difficulties and challenges. Here two methods for calculating confidence intervals for the magnitude of the residual between-study variance in random effects meta-regression models are developed. A further suggestion for calculating credible intervals using informative prior distributions for the residual between-study variance is presented.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Macao 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 40 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 20%
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Master 7 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 9%
Other 13 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 30%
Mathematics 8 18%
Unspecified 7 16%
Psychology 5 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Other 9 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 08 October 2018.
All research outputs
#3,778,321
of 13,595,754 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#563
of 1,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,364
of 201,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,595,754 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,253 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 201,043 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them