↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Blinded versus unblinded assessments of risk of bias in studies included in a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2011
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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
Title
Blinded versus unblinded assessments of risk of bias in studies included in a systematic review
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.mr000025.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kate Morissette, Andrea C Tricco, Tanya Horsley, Maggie H Chen, David Moher

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 62 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 25%
Researcher 11 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 9 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 46%
Social Sciences 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Psychology 5 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 11 16%

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 22 July 2020.
All research outputs
#1,753,863
of 18,960,910 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,144
of 11,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,963
of 244,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#107
of 258 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,960,910 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,901 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 244,167 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 258 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.