↓ Skip to main content

Method for appraising model validity of randomised controlled trials of homeopathic treatment: multi-rater concordance study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2012
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 (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
3 Mendeley
Title
Method for appraising model validity of randomised controlled trials of homeopathic treatment: multi-rater concordance study
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-12-49
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert T Mathie, Helmut Roniger, Michel Van Wassenhoven, Joyce Frye, Jennifer Jacobs, Menachem Oberbaum, Marie-France Bordet, Chaturbhuja Nayak, Gilles Chaufferin, John A Ives, Flávio Dantas, Peter Fisher

Abstract

A method for assessing the model validity of randomised controlled trials of homeopathy is needed. To date, only conventional standards for assessing intrinsic bias (internal validity) of trials have been invoked, with little recognition of the special characteristics of homeopathy. We aimed to identify relevant judgmental domains to use in assessing the model validity of homeopathic treatment (MVHT). We define MVHT as the extent to which a homeopathic intervention and the main measure of its outcome, as implemented in a randomised controlled trial (RCT), reflect 'state-of-the-art' homeopathic practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 3 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 67%
Student > Master 1 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 100%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 August 2019.
All research outputs
#1,134,799
of 13,481,034 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#176
of 1,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,723
of 121,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,481,034 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,249 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 121,209 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 91% 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