| Title |
Outcomes of patients who participate in randomized controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.mr000009.pub4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gunn Elisabeth Vist, Dianne Bryant, Lyndsay Somerville, Trevor Birminghem, Andrew D Oxman |
| Abstract |
Some people believe that patients who take part in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) face risks that they would not face if they opted for non-trial treatment. Others think that trial participation is beneficial and the best way to ensure access to the most up-to-date physicians and treatments. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2005. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 2 | 29% |
| Japan | 1 | 14% |
| Sweden | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Australia | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 1 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Scientists | 3 | 43% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 267 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 254 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 48 | 18% |
| Researcher | 32 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 32 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 10% |
| Other | 15 | 6% |
| Other | 63 | 24% |
| Unknown | 51 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 120 | 45% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 25 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 9 | 3% |
| Psychology | 9 | 3% |
| Other | 30 | 11% |
| Unknown | 63 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 March 2023.
All research outputs
#5,189,339
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,107
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,931
of 96,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#30
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 96,120 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.