The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-019-0717-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrija Babic, Ruzica Tokalic, João Amílcar Silva Cunha, Ivana Novak, Jelena Suto, Marin Vidak, Ivana Miosic, Ivana Vuka, Tina Poklepovic Pericic, Livia Puljak |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 22% |
| Croatia | 1 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 11% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 5 | 56% |
| Members of the public | 4 | 44% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 93 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 14% |
| Researcher | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 30 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 34 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 24 January 2022.
All research outputs
#2,062,417
of 26,563,746 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#257
of 2,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,984
of 369,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#12
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,563,746 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,410 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 369,436 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.