↓ Skip to main content

Practice‐based Research Network Research Good Practices (PRGPs): Summary of Recommendations

Overview of attention for article published in CTS: Clinical & Translational Science, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
Practice‐based Research Network Research Good Practices (PRGPs): Summary of Recommendations
Published in
CTS: Clinical & Translational Science, August 2015
DOI 10.1111/cts.12317
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) conduct research in community settings, which poses quality control challenges to the integrity of research, such as study implementation and data collection. A foundation for improving research processes within PBRNs is needed to ensure research integrity. Network directors and coordinators from seven U.S.-based PBRNs worked with a professional team facilitator during semiannual in-person meetings and monthly conference calls to produce content for a compendium of recommended research practices specific to the context of PBRNs. Participants were assigned to contribute content congruent with their expertise. Feedback on the draft document was obtained from attendees at the preconference workshop at the annual PBRN meeting in 2013. A revised document was circulated to additional PBRN peers prior to finalization. The PBRN Research Good Practices (PRGPs) document is organized into four chapters: (1) Building PBRN Infrastructure; (2) Study Development and Implementation; (3) Data Management, and (4) Dissemination Policies. Each chapter contains an introduction, detailed procedures for each section, and example resources with information links. The PRGPs is a PBRN-specific resource to facilitate PBRN management and staff training, to promote adherence to study protocols, and to increase validity and generalizability of study findings. Clin Trans Sci 2015; Volume #: 1-9.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 48 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 12%
Other 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 29%
Social Sciences 7 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 15 31%
Attention Score in Context

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 20 October 2015.
All research outputs
#31,182,611
of 34,360,889 outputs
Outputs from CTS: Clinical & Translational Science
#1,267
of 1,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#266,386
of 302,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CTS: Clinical & Translational Science
#14
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,360,889 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,417 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 302,158 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.