↓ Skip to main content

Comparing multiple competing interventions in the absence of randomized trials using clinical risk-benefit analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
Comparing multiple competing interventions in the absence of randomized trials using clinical risk-benefit analysis
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-12-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alejandro Lazo-Langner, Marc A Rodger, Nicholas J Barrowman, Tim Ramsay, Philip S Wells, Douglas A Coyle

Abstract

To demonstrate the use of risk-benefit analysis for comparing multiple competing interventions in the absence of randomized trials, we applied this approach to the evaluation of five anticoagulants to prevent thrombosis in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 34 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Student > Master 5 14%
Researcher 5 14%
Other 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 7 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 40%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 9 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 January 2012.
All research outputs
#7,141,564
of 12,373,180 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#694
of 1,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,440
of 223,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#51
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,095 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 223,320 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.