↓ Skip to main content

Meta-regression models to address heterogeneity and inconsistency in network meta-analysis of survival outcomes

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Meta-regression models to address heterogeneity and inconsistency in network meta-analysis of survival outcomes
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, October 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-12-152
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeroen P Jansen, Shannon Cope

Abstract

Recently, network meta-analysis of survival data with a multidimensional treatment effect was introduced. With these models the hazard ratio is not assumed to be constant over time, thereby reducing the possibility of violating transitivity in indirect comparisons. However, bias is still present if there are systematic differences in treatment effect modifiers across comparisons.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 4%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 48 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 25%
Researcher 12 23%
Other 7 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 3 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 50%
Mathematics 8 15%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 6%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 4 8%

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 17 April 2014.
All research outputs
#5,231,635
of 10,451,113 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#499
of 944 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,991
of 112,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#11
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 10,451,113 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 944 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 112,719 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.