| Title |
Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.mr000032.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Valerie C Brueton, Jayne Tierney, Sally Stenning, Seeromanie Harding, Sarah Meredith, Irwin Nazareth, Greta Rait |
| Abstract |
Loss to follow-up from randomised trials can introduce bias and reduce study power, affecting the generalisability, validity and reliability of results. Many strategies are used to reduce loss to follow-up and improve retention but few have been formally evaluated. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 47 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 | 22 | 47% |
| Australia | 2 | 4% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 2% |
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| Guinea | 1 | 2% |
| Ireland | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 16 | 34% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 21 | 45% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 12 | 26% |
| Scientists | 10 | 21% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 414 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Mozambique | 1 | <1% |
| Egypt | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 407 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 84 | 20% |
| Researcher | 67 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 48 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 42 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 23 | 6% |
| Other | 65 | 16% |
| Unknown | 85 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 125 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 66 | 16% |
| Psychology | 41 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 27 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 11 | 3% |
| Other | 38 | 9% |
| Unknown | 106 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. 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 18 December 2020.
All research outputs
#893,841
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,730
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,279
of 320,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#31
of 219 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 320,664 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 219 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.