| Title |
Clinical trials registries are under-utilized in the conduct of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-3-126 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher W Jones, Lukas G Keil, Mark A Weaver, Timothy F Platts-Mills |
| Abstract |
Publication bias is a major threat to the validity of systematic reviews. Searches of clinical trials registries can help to identify unpublished trials, though little is known about how often these resources are utilized. We assessed the usage and results of registry searches reported in systematic reviews published in major general medical journals. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 | 9 | 32% |
| United States | 3 | 11% |
| Chile | 2 | 7% |
| Canada | 2 | 7% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| South Africa | 1 | 4% |
| Germany | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 19 | 68% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 18% |
| Scientists | 4 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 6% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 17% |
| Librarian | 7 | 15% |
| Researcher | 7 | 15% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 6 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 47% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 9% |
| Psychology | 2 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 10 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 01 March 2016.
All research outputs
#1,259,831
of 24,274,366 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#186
of 2,108 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,648
of 265,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#8
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,274,366 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,108 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. 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 265,095 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 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.