Title |
A systematic review of the quality of reporting in published smoking cessation trials for pregnant women: an explanation for the evidence-practice gap?
|
---|---|
Published in |
Implementation Science, August 2014
|
DOI | 10.1186/s13012-014-0094-z |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Jamie Bryant, Megan E Passey, Alix E Hall, Rob W Sanson-Fisher |
Abstract |
To facilitate translation of evidence into clinical practice, it is critical that clear, specific, and detailed information about interventions is provided in publications to promote replication, appropriate aggregation in meta-analysis, and implementation. This study examined whether twenty elements of interventions deemed essential for such translational application were reported in sufficient detail in smoking cessation trials with pregnant women. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Ireland | 1 | 17% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
Canada | 1 | 17% |
Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
New Zealand | 1 | 1% |
Australia | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 71 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 16% |
Student > Master | 11 | 15% |
Student > Bachelor | 8 | 11% |
Researcher | 6 | 8% |
Librarian | 5 | 7% |
Other | 11 | 15% |
Unknown | 20 | 27% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Psychology | 15 | 21% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 19% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 8% |
Social Sciences | 5 | 7% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 5% |
Other | 8 | 11% |
Unknown | 21 | 29% |
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 02 September 2014.
All research outputs
#7,169,303
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,163
of 1,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,615
of 237,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#27
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 237,094 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.