| Title |
Randomised trial investigating the relationship of response rate for blood sample donation to site of biospecimen collection, fasting status and reminder letter: The 45 and Up Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-12-147 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emily Banks, Nicol Herbert, Kris Rogers, Tanya Mather, Louisa Jorm |
| Abstract |
Various options exist for collecting biospecimens and biomarkers from cohort study participants, and these have important logistic, resource and scientific implications. Evidence on how different collection methods affect participation and data quality is lacking. This parallel-design randomised trial, the Link-Up Study, involved blood sample donation and other data collection among participants in an existing cohort study, The 45 and Up Study. It aimed to investigate the relation of fasting status, reminder letters and data collection site to response rates, data quality and biospecimen yield. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 30 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 19% |
| Researcher | 5 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 19% |
| Unknown | 6 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 10% |
| Chemical Engineering | 2 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 11 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 04 March 2012.
All research outputs
#12,863,576
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,182
of 2,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,381
of 171,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#12
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,001 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 171,470 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.