↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
69 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
165 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
249 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.mr000035.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew J Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Jamie Kirkham, Kerry Dwan, Sharon Kramer, Sally Green, Andrew Forbes

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 69 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 249 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 236 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 48 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 14%
Researcher 31 12%
Other 20 8%
Student > Postgraduate 20 8%
Other 61 24%
Unknown 34 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 112 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 4%
Psychology 8 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 3%
Other 38 15%
Unknown 52 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 53. 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 26 June 2020.
All research outputs
#491,995
of 17,641,103 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,137
of 11,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,713
of 217,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#18
of 224 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,641,103 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,725 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 217,828 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 224 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.