↓ Skip to main content

The use of tailored subheadings was successful in enhancing compliance with CONSORT in a dental journal

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Dental Medicine, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
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.
Title
The use of tailored subheadings was successful in enhancing compliance with CONSORT in a dental journal
Published in
Journal of Dental Medicine, September 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.09.009
Pubmed ID
Authors

Despina Koletsi, Padhraig S. Fleming, Rolf G. Behrents, Christopher D. Lynch, Nikolaos Pandis

Abstract

Efforts to enhance the reporting of clinical trials have intensified in recent years with automated strategies and editorial involvement showing promise in improving compliance with accepted guidelines. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a concerted approach to adherence to CONSORT (CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials) guidelines in a dental journal. Following the publication of an exemplar clinical trial on the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJO-DO) website and related changes to the author guidelines, trial submissions were required to follow a standard format incorporating subheadings mirroring the CONSORT guidelines. Compliance with CONSORT was assessed in initial submissions over a 30-month period. Reporting was compared to submissions of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which did not include subheadings over the same period. Seventy-one RCTs were submitted to the AJO-DO from January 2014 to June 2016, 49 with subheadings and 22 without. Most CONSORT items (e.g. random sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding) were more frequently adequately reported when RCTs were submitted with inclusion of subheadings. Overall, reporting quality of the submitted RCTs was 15.2% higher with use of the subheadings format (95%CI: 10.5, 20.0; p<0.001) with a mean overall score of 87.3%. Enhanced compliance of submitted RCTs was found with use of a bespoke approach to trial presentation utilizing CONSORT item subheadings. The improvement in initial submissions is particularly encouraging as this arose without input either from peer reviewers or journal editors. This simple approach may have wider applicability.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 15%
Professor 2 15%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Other 2 15%
Unknown 2 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 69%
Psychology 1 8%
Engineering 1 8%
Unknown 2 15%
Attention Score in Context

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 01 November 2017.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Dental Medicine
#970
of 1,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,672
of 325,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Dental Medicine
#13
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,511 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 325,302 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.