Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29509813›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2018

All metrics are equal, but some metrics are more equal than others: A systematic search and review on the use of the term 'metric'.

Núria Duran Adroher, Birgit Prodinger, Carolina Saskia Fellinghauer, Alan Tennant

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Núria Duran AdroherSwiss Paraplegic Research, Nottwil, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-2668-1820
Birgit ProdingerSwiss Paraplegic Research, Nottwil, Switzerland.
Carolina Saskia FellinghauerSwiss Paraplegic Research, Nottwil, Switzerland.
Alan TennantSwiss Paraplegic Research, Nottwil, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine the use of the term 'metric' in health and social sciences' literature, focusing on the interval scale implication of the term in Modern Test Theory (MTT). MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic search and review on MTT studies including 'metric' or 'interval scale' was performed in the health and social sciences literature. The search was restricted to 2001-2005 and 2011-2015. A Text Mining algorithm was employed to operationalize the eligibility criteria and to explore the uses of 'metric'. The paradigm of each included article (Rasch Measurement Theory (RMT), Item Response Theory (IRT) or both), as well as its type (Theoretical, Methodological, Teaching, Application, Miscellaneous) were determined. An inductive thematic analysis on the first three types was performed.

results70.6% of the 1337 included articles were allocated to RMT, and 68.4% were application papers. Among the number of uses of 'metric', it was predominantly a synonym of 'scale'; as adjective, it referred to measurement or quantification. Three incompatible themes 'only RMT/all MTT/no MTT models can provide interval measures' were identified, but 'interval scale' was considerably more mentioned in RMT than in IRT.

conclusion'Metric' is used in many different ways, and there is no consensus on which MTT metric has interval scale properties. Nevertheless, when using the term 'metric', the authors should specify the level of the metric being used (ordinal, ordered, interval, ratio), and justify why according to them the metric is at that level.

Indexed as

Statistics as TopicTerminology as TopicData MiningHumansResearch

Identifiers

PMID29509813
PMCPMC5839589

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.