↓ Skip to main content

A guide to performing a peer review of randomised controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
46 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
A guide to performing a peer review of randomised controlled trials
Published in
BMC Medicine, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0471-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chris Del Mar, Tammy C. Hoffmann

Abstract

Peer review of journal articles is an important step in the research process. Editors rely on the expertise of peer reviewers to properly assess submissions. Yet, peer review quality varies widely and few receive training or guidance in how to approach the task.This paper describes some of the main steps that peer reviewers in general and, in particular, those performing reviewes of randomised controlled trials (RCT), can use when carrying out a review. It can be helpful to begin with a brief read to acquaint yourself with the study, followed by a detailed read and a careful check for flaws. These can be divided into 'major' (problems that must be resolved before publication can be considered) and 'minor' (suggested improvements that are discretionary) flaws. Being aware of the appropriate reporting checklist for the study being reviewed (such as CONSORT and its extensions for RCTs) can also be valuable.Competing interests or prejudices might corrode the review, so ensuring transparency about them is important. Finally, ensuring that the paper's strengths are acknowledged along with a dissection of the weaknesses provides balance and perspective to both authors and editors. Helpful reviews are constructive and improve the quality of the paper. The proper conduct of a peer review is the responsibility of all who accept the role.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 46 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 105 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 16%
Researcher 15 14%
Other 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Student > Postgraduate 11 10%
Other 29 26%
Unknown 11 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 17%
Computer Science 7 6%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 23 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 23 December 2021.
All research outputs
#1,035,448
of 23,576,969 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#726
of 3,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,628
of 286,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#21
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,576,969 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,569 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 286,230 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.