↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2011
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
48 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
linkedin
1 LinkedIn user

Citations

dimensions_citation
170 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
295 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 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 295 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%
Brazil 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 284 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 57 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 15%
Student > Master 38 13%
Other 29 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 6%
Other 74 25%
Unknown 34 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 101 34%
Psychology 44 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 6%
Social Sciences 17 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 3%
Other 53 18%
Unknown 52 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 59. 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 20 December 2020.
All research outputs
#436,441
of 17,475,439 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#980
of 11,701 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,430
of 133,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,475,439 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 11,701 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 91% 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 133,115 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 103 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 98% of its contemporaries.