Title |
Interval-cohort designs and bias in the estimation of per-protocol effects: a simulation study
|
---|---|
Published in |
Trials, September 2019
|
DOI | 10.1186/s13063-019-3577-z |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Jessica G. Young, Rajet Vatsa, Eleanor J. Murray, Miguel A. Hernán |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 63 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 | 15 | 24% |
United Kingdom | 10 | 16% |
Australia | 5 | 8% |
Netherlands | 2 | 3% |
Canada | 2 | 3% |
Sweden | 2 | 3% |
South Africa | 1 | 2% |
India | 1 | 2% |
Germany | 1 | 2% |
Other | 2 | 3% |
Unknown | 22 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 36 | 57% |
Scientists | 21 | 33% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 8% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 29% |
Professor | 3 | 10% |
Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 10% |
Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
Other | 4 | 13% |
Unknown | 8 | 26% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 45% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 10% |
Mathematics | 2 | 6% |
Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
Other | 5 | 16% |
Unknown | 5 | 16% |