| Title |
Form follows function: pragmatic controlled trials (PCTs) have to answer different questions and require different designs than randomized controlled trials (RCTs)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Journal of Public Health: From Theory to Practice, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10389-012-0544-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Franz Porzsolt, Martin Eisemann, Michael Habs, Peter Wyer |
| Abstract |
Rising concern for demonstrated real world comparative effectiveness has heightened interest in "pragmatic trials" design. Pragmatic trials investigate whether the efficacy, presumed or found in explanatory trials under ideal conditions, can also be detected under real world conditions, i.e. effectiveness. It is also recognized that 'real world' effects which are usually addressed in public health research gain growing interest in confirming the 'road capability' of results obtained under ideal study conditions. This paper demonstrates that studies under ideal or real world conditions use different methods, generate different information and cannot replace each other. |
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 43 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% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 40 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 23% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 23% |
| Unknown | 11 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 40% |
| Psychology | 3 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 14 | 33% |
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 09 March 2014.
All research outputs
#20,672,780
of 25,394,081 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Public Health: From Theory to Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,307
of 198,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Public Health: From Theory to Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,081 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 0.0. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 198,585 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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