↓ Skip to main content

Citation networks of related trials are often disconnected: implications for bidirectional citation searches

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Citation networks of related trials are often disconnected: implications for bidirectional citation searches
Published in
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, April 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.11.015
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should set findings within the context of previous research. The resulting network of citations would also provide an alternative search method for clinicians, researchers, and systematic reviewers seeking to base decisions on all available evidence. We sought to determine the connectedness of citation networks of RCTs by examining direct (referenced trials) and indirect (through references of referenced trials, etc) citation of trials to one another.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Denmark 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 43 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 8 17%
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Professor 3 6%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 12 26%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 36%
Social Sciences 5 11%
Computer Science 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 16 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 16 October 2021.
All research outputs
#11,173,026
of 32,973,893 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
#2,838
of 5,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,061
of 262,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
#23
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,973,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 65th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,184 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 262,722 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.