| Title |
Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd006776.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elie A Akl, Andrew D Oxman, Jeph Herrin, Gunn E Vist, Irene Terrenato, Francesca Sperati, Cecilia Costiniuk, Diana Blank, Holger Schünemann |
| Abstract |
The success of evidence-based practice depends on the clear and effective communication of statistical information. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 8 | 17% |
| United States | 5 | 10% |
| Japan | 3 | 6% |
| Canada | 2 | 4% |
| Finland | 2 | 4% |
| Australia | 2 | 4% |
| Spain | 2 | 4% |
| Argentina | 1 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 22 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 28 | 58% |
| Scientists | 11 | 23% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 355 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 344 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 63 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 49 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 48 | 14% |
| Other | 30 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 21 | 6% |
| Other | 87 | 25% |
| Unknown | 57 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 115 | 32% |
| Psychology | 49 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 23 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 18 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 9 | 3% |
| Other | 65 | 18% |
| Unknown | 76 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. 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 March 2024.
All research outputs
#705,456
of 25,698,912 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,302
of 13,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,381
of 120,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,698,912 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 13,136 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. 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 120,153 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 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 95% of its contemporaries.