| Title |
The comprehensive cohort model in a pilot trial in orthopaedic trauma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-11-39 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rebecca S Kearney, Juul Achten, Nick R Parsons, Matthew L Costa |
| Abstract |
The primary aim of this study was to provide an estimate of effect size for the functional outcome of operative versus non-operative treatment for patients with an acute rupture of the Achilles tendon using accelerated rehabilitation for both groups of patients. The secondary aim was to assess the use of a comprehensive cohort research design (i.e. a parallel patient-preference group alongside a randomised group) in improving the accuracy of this estimate within an orthopaedic trauma setting. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 6 | 16% |
| Australia | 5 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 11% |
| Ireland | 2 | 5% |
| United States | 2 | 5% |
| Chile | 1 | 3% |
| Norway | 1 | 3% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 3% |
| Argentina | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 13 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 30 | 81% |
| Scientists | 5 | 14% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Portugal | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 64 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 27% |
| Unknown | 18 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 24 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 29 March 2015.
All research outputs
#1,530,052
of 24,836,260 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#183
of 2,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,001
of 113,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,836,260 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 113,801 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.