| Title |
ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Medical Journal, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1136/bmj.i4919 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jonathan Ac Sterne, Miguel A Hernán, Barnaby C Reeves, Jelena Savović, Nancy D Berkman, Meera Viswanathan, David Henry, Douglas G Altman, Mohammed T Ansari, Isabelle Boutron, James R Carpenter, An-Wen Chan, Rachel Churchill, Jonathan J Deeks, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, Jamie Kirkham, Peter Jüni, Yoon K Loke, Theresa D Pigott, Craig R Ramsay, Deborah Regidor, Hannah R Rothstein, Lakhbir Sandhu, Pasqualina L Santaguida, Holger J Schünemann, Beverly Shea, Ian Shrier, Peter Tugwell, Lucy Turner, Jeffrey C Valentine, Hugh Waddington, Elizabeth Waters, George A Wells, Penny F Whiting, Julian Pt Higgins |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 437 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 | 108 | 25% |
| United States | 43 | 10% |
| Canada | 23 | 5% |
| Spain | 21 | 5% |
| Australia | 18 | 4% |
| Colombia | 14 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 12 | 3% |
| Ireland | 7 | 2% |
| Argentina | 5 | 1% |
| Other | 45 | 10% |
| Unknown | 141 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 228 | 52% |
| Scientists | 131 | 30% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 63 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 15 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5,724 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 5714 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 832 | 15% |
| Researcher | 620 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 567 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 546 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 340 | 6% |
| Other | 1027 | 18% |
| Unknown | 1792 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1848 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 444 | 8% |
| Psychology | 200 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 142 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 131 | 2% |
| Other | 832 | 15% |
| Unknown | 2127 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 342. 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 01 December 2023.
All research outputs
#97,249
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from British Medical Journal
#1,546
of 64,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,002
of 328,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Medical Journal
#21
of 858 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 64,974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 328,974 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 858 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 97% of its contemporaries.