| Title |
Selecting and measuring optimal outcomes for randomised controlled trials in surgery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00423-013-1136-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rhiannon C. Macefield, Caroline E. Boulind, Jane M. Blazeby |
| Abstract |
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in surgery are complex to design and conduct and face unique challenges compared to trials in other specialties. The appropriate selection, measurement and reporting of outcomes are one aspect that requires attention. Outcomes in surgical RCTs are often ill-defined, inconsistent and at high risk of bias in their assessment and historically, there has been an undue focus on short-term outcomes and adverse events meaning the value of trial results for clinical practice and decision-making is limited. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 | 6 | 75% |
| Japan | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 1 | 13% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 77 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 19% |
| Unknown | 16 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 21% |
| Psychology | 4 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 14% |
| Unknown | 18 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 19 December 2013.
All research outputs
#6,051,707
of 22,731,677 outputs
Outputs from Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery
#168
of 1,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,027
of 212,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,731,677 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,120 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 212,302 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.