statistical methods in medical research | Journament

Journal Ranking

#779 / 33,971
📊 Below Average
Overall Score
43.2/100
Score Breakdown
Engagement
31
Accessibility
35
Timeliness
50
Diversity
30
Innovation
40
Community Impact
36
Ethics & Transparency
0
Content Quality
0
Editorial Diversity
0
Publication Regularity
0
Geographic Reach
0
Updated 5 days ago

statistical methods in medical research

Login or register to claim ownership or editorship of this journal.
Quality Widget - Embed on Your Website

Display your journal's quality scores on your website with our beautiful, self-contained widget. Choose between two embedding methods below.

One-Line JavaScript Embed (Recommended):
Advantages:
  • ✅ Simpler integration (just one line of code)
  • ✅ Better SEO (content is in same DOM)
  • ✅ No iframe limitations
  • ✅ Fully self-contained (no dependencies)
  • ✅ Works on any website regardless of CSS framework
  • ✅ Clickable badges link to full journal page
iFrame Embed Code:
Limitations:
  • ⚠️ Display-only (scores not clickable due to iframe constraints)
  • ⚠️ May have SEO limitations
  • ⚠️ Potential CORS/CSP issues on some websites
Preview:
Indexings
scopus ncbi ulakbim sci
Short Name stat methods med res
Abbreviated Name stat methods med res
ISSN 1477-0334
Aim and Scope
URL http://smm.sagepub.com
Author Instructions

Publications Per Year

Recent Articles (11 total)

2000
Exponential family models and statistical genetics.
Palmgren, J;
Vol. 9 , No. 1 , pp. 57-72
382 views Abstract
2017
An ensemble survival model for estimating relative residual longevity following stroke: Application to mortality data in the chronic dialysis population.
Phadnis, Milind A;Wetmore, James B;Shireman, Theresa I;Ellerbeck, Edward F;Mahnken, Jonathan D;
Vol. 26 , No. 6 , pp. 2667-2680
380 views DOI Abstract
2019
Bayesian hidden Markov models for delineating the pathology of Alzheimer's disease.
Kang, Kai;Cai, Jingheng;Song, Xinyuan;Zhu, Hongtu;
Vol. 28 , No. 7 , pp. 2112-2124
349 views DOI Abstract
2018
A two-stage model in a Bayesian framework to estimate a survival endpoint in the presence of confounding by indication.
Bellera, Carine;Proust-Lima, Cécile;Joseph, Lawrence;Richaud, Pierre;Taylor, Jeremy;Sandler, Howard;Hanley, James;Mathoulin-Pélissier, Simone;
Vol. 27 , No. 4 , pp. 1271-1281
326 views DOI Abstract
2017
Bayesian analysis of multi-type recurrent events and dependent termination with nonparametric covariate functions.
Lin, Li-An;Luo, Sheng;Chen, Bingshu E;Davis, Barry R;
Vol. 26 , No. 6 , pp. 2869-2884
325 views DOI Abstract
2019
Subgroup balancing propensity score.
Dong, Jing;Zhang, Junni L;Zeng, Shuxi;Li, Fan;
, pp. 962280219870836
307 views DOI Abstract
2019
Periodic-type auto-regressive moving average modeling with covariates for time-series incidence data via changepoint detection.
Kalligeris, Emmanouil-Nektarios;Karagrigoriou, Alex;Parpoula, Christina;
, pp. 962280219871587
306 views DOI Abstract
2019
Authors' reply: Letter to the Editor: Preference option randomized design (PORD) for comparative effectiveness research: Statistical power for testing comparative effect, preference effect, selection effect, intent-to-treat effect, and overall effect (SMMR, Vol. 28, Issue 2, 2019)
Heo, M.
Vol. 28 , pp. 1600-1602
284 views DOI
2019
Comment to the reply letter: Letter to the Editor: Preference option randomized design (PORD) for comparative effectiveness research: Statistical power for testing comparative effect, preference effect, selection effect, intent-to-treat effect, and overall effect (SMMR, Vol. 28, Issue 2, 2019)
Walter, S.
Vol. 28 , pp. 1603
279 views DOI
2019
Letter to the Editor: Preference option randomized design (PORD) for comparative effectiveness research: Statistical power for testing comparative effect, preference effect, selection effect, intent-to-treat effect, and overall effect (SMMR, Vol. 28, Issue 2, 2019)
Walter, S.
Vol. 28 , pp. 1597-1598
261 views DOI
View All 11 Articles
43
Overall
Below Average
31
35
30
40
36
50
0
0
0
0
0
Journament

Overall Quality Score

43.2/100

Tier: Below Average

The Journament Overall Quality Score is a comprehensive metric that evaluates academic journals across multiple dimensions including engagement, accessibility, diversity, innovation, and community impact.

This score helps researchers, institutions, and publishers understand the holistic quality and impact of a journal beyond traditional metrics.

Engagement Score

30.9/100

Measures user interactions, views, citations, and community involvement with this journal's content.

Higher engagement scores indicate that the journal's content is actively being read, cited, and discussed within the academic community.

Accessibility Score

35.0/100

Evaluates how easily researchers can access journal content, including open access availability, ISSN registration, and indexing.

This metric considers factors such as paywalls, open access policies, and availability across different academic databases and search engines.

Diversity Score

30.0/100

Assesses geographic and institutional diversity of authors, editorial board composition, and topic breadth.

A diverse journal publishes work from various geographic regions, institutions, and covers a broad range of topics within its field.

Innovation Score

40.0/100

Evaluates research novelty, interdisciplinary work, and emerging topics based on AI analysis of article abstracts.

This score reflects how much the journal publishes cutting-edge research, explores new methodologies, and bridges different academic disciplines.

Community Impact Score

36.0/100

Measures scholarly contribution and real-world applications of published research.

This metric evaluates how the journal's research translates into practical applications, policy changes, and benefits to society beyond academia.

Timeliness Score

50.0/100

Evaluates recent publication activity, publication frequency, and currency of research topics.

Higher scores indicate consistent publishing schedules and timely coverage of current research trends.

Ethics & Transparency Score

0.0/100

Research Integrity (10% weight)

Assesses COPE standards compliance, ethical considerations in research, transparency in methodologies, and reproducibility practices.

This metric ensures the journal maintains high ethical standards and promotes transparent, trustworthy research.

Content Quality Score

0.0/100

Academic Rigor (20% weight) + Methodology Quality (12%)

Evaluates research methodology soundness, statistical rigor, theoretical framework strength, appropriateness of research methods, data quality, and clarity & readability.

This comprehensive metric ensures published research meets the highest academic standards.

Editorial Diversity Score

0.0/100

Author Diversity + Interdisciplinary Value (8%)

Measures geographic diversity of authors, institutional variety, editorial board composition, and cross-disciplinary connections.

Diverse editorial teams bring varied perspectives and reduce bias in academic publishing.

Publication Regularity Score

0.0/100

Assesses consistency of publication schedule, frequency stability, and predictable output patterns.

Regular publication schedules indicate reliable journal operations and consistent workflow management.

Geographic Reach Score

0.0/100

Evaluates international author representation, global readership distribution, and cross-border research collaboration.

Wide geographic reach indicates global impact and international recognition of the journal's research.