| Title |
Is it possible to estimate the minimal clinically important treatment effect needed to change practice in preterm birth prevention? Results of an obstetrician survey used to support the design of a trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-12-31 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sue Ross, Jill Milne, Shannon Dwinnell, Selphee Tang, Stephen Wood |
| Abstract |
Sample sizes for obstetrical trials are often based on the opinion of investigators about clinically important effect size. We surveyed Canadian obstetricians to investigate clinically important effect sizes required before introducing new treatments into practice to prevent preterm birth. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 42 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 26% |
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 11 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 47% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 9% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 21% |
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 04 October 2012.
All research outputs
#17,666,399
of 22,679,690 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,667
of 2,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,486
of 159,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#29
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,679,690 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,001 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 159,684 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.