You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Sample size calculations in clinical research should also be based on ethical principles
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13063-016-1277-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bruno Mario Cesana, Paolo Antonelli |
| Abstract |
Sample size calculations based on too narrow a width, or with lower and upper confidence limits bounded by fixed cut-off points, not only increase power-based sample sizes to ethically unacceptable levels (thus making research practically unfeasible) but also greatly increase the costs and burdens of clinical trials. We propose an alternative method of combining the power of a statistical test and the probability of obtaining adequate precision (the power of the confidence interval) with an acceptable increase in power-based sample sizes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 1 | 10% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 10% |
| Cameroon | 1 | 10% |
| United States | 1 | 10% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 21% |
| Professor | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 25% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 8% |
| Psychology | 2 | 8% |
| Engineering | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 21% |
| Unknown | 5 | 21% |
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 06 April 2016.
All research outputs
#5,602,810
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#45
of 45 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,812
of 316,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#24
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 45 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 316,775 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 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 64% of its contemporaries.