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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Factors associated with clinical trials that fail and opportunities for improving the likelihood of success: A review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.conctc.2018.08.001 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David B Fogel |
| Abstract |
Clinical trials are time consuming, expensive, and often burdensome on patients. Clinical trials can fail for many reasons. This survey reviews many of these reasons and offers insights on opportunities for improving the likelihood of creating and executing successful clinical trials. Literature from the past 30 years was reviewed for relevant data. Common patterns in reported successful trials are identified, including factors regarding the study site, study coordinator/investigator, and the effects on participating patients. Specific instances where artificial intelligence can help improve clinical trials are identified. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 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 States | 11 | 19% |
| Australia | 6 | 10% |
| Canada | 4 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 5% |
| Colombia | 1 | 2% |
| Finland | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 30 | 52% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 52 | 90% |
| Scientists | 5 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,037 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1037 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 139 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 123 | 12% |
| Researcher | 120 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 111 | 11% |
| Other | 44 | 4% |
| Other | 133 | 13% |
| Unknown | 367 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 111 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 102 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 93 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 40 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 39 | 4% |
| Other | 252 | 24% |
| Unknown | 400 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 538. 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 26 February 2024.
All research outputs
#46,128
of 25,541,640 outputs
Outputs from Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
#1
of 614 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#919
of 341,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
#1
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,541,640 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 614 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 341,204 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.