| Title |
What is a pilot or feasibility study? A review of current practice and editorial policy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-10-67 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mubashir Arain, Michael J Campbell, Cindy L Cooper, Gillian A Lancaster |
| Abstract |
In 2004, a review of pilot studies published in seven major medical journals during 2000-01 recommended that the statistical analysis of such studies should be either mainly descriptive or focus on sample size estimation, while results from hypothesis testing must be interpreted with caution. We revisited these journals to see whether the subsequent recommendations have changed the practice of reporting pilot studies. We also conducted a survey to identify the methodological components in registered research studies which are described as 'pilot' or 'feasibility' studies. We extended this survey to grant-awarding bodies and editors of medical journals to discover their policies regarding the function and reporting of pilot studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 | 7 | 26% |
| Japan | 2 | 7% |
| United States | 2 | 7% |
| Denmark | 2 | 7% |
| Germany | 1 | 4% |
| Egypt | 1 | 4% |
| Ireland | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 11 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 48% |
| Scientists | 11 | 41% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,876 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 22 | 1% |
| United States | 12 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 6 | <1% |
| Canada | 4 | <1% |
| Portugal | 3 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 2 | <1% |
| Japan | 2 | <1% |
| Nigeria | 2 | <1% |
| Sweden | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 15 | <1% |
| Unknown | 1806 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 357 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 285 | 15% |
| Researcher | 229 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 177 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 97 | 5% |
| Other | 394 | 21% |
| Unknown | 337 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 407 | 22% |
| Psychology | 231 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 189 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 146 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 104 | 6% |
| Other | 352 | 19% |
| Unknown | 447 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 09 April 2021.
All research outputs
#1,258,660
of 24,677,985 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#144
of 2,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,791
of 100,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,677,985 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 2,195 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 100,174 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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 99% of its contemporaries.