| Title |
Mapping randomized controlled trials of treatments for eczema - The GREAT database (The Global Resource of Eczema Trials: a collection of key data on randomized controlled trials of treatments for eczema from 2000 to 2010)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Dermatology, May 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-5945-11-10 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Helen Nankervis, Alan Maplethorpe, Hywel C Williams |
| Abstract |
Massive duplication of effort occurs when researchers all over the world undertake extensive searches for randomized controlled trials when preparing systematic reviews, when developing evidence-based guidelines and when applying for research funding for eczema treatments. Such duplication wastes valuable resources.Searching for randomized controlled trials of eczema is a laborious task involving scrutiny of thousands of individual references from diverse electronic databases in order to obtain a few papers of interest. Clinicians and patients who wish to find out more about a particular treatment are at risk of missing the relevant evidence if they are not trained in electronic bibliographic searching. Systematic reviews cannot be relied upon to comprehensively inform current optimal eczema treatments due to incomplete coverage and because many may be out of date.An international, publically available and comprehensive resource which brings together all randomized controlled trials on eczema treatment using a highly sensitive search has the potential to release more filtered knowledge about patient care to those who need it most and to significantly shorten the duration and costs of many clinical eczema research and guideline projects. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 37 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 26% |
| Researcher | 6 | 15% |
| Librarian | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 5 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 46% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 10% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 5% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 August 2013.
All research outputs
#15,276,424
of 22,716,996 outputs
Outputs from BMC Dermatology
#87
of 133 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,296
of 111,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Dermatology
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,716,996 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 133 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 111,899 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them