↓ Skip to main content

Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2012
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
29 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
430 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
295 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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.
Title
Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.mr000030.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lucy Turner, Larissa Shamseer, Douglas G Altman, Laura Weeks, Jodi Peters, Thilo Kober, Sofia Dias, Kenneth F Schulz, Amy C Plint, David Moher

Abstract

An overwhelming body of evidence stating that the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal has accrued over time. In the mid-1990s, in response to these concerns, an international group of clinical trialists, statisticians, epidemiologists, and biomedical journal editors developed the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement. The CONSORT Statement, most recently updated in March 2010, is an evidence-based minimum set of recommendations including a checklist and flow diagram for reporting RCTs and is intended to facilitate the complete and transparent reporting of trials and aid their critical appraisal and interpretation. In 2006, a systematic review of eight studies evaluating the "effectiveness of CONSORT in improving reporting quality in journals" was published.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 295 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 3 1%
United Kingdom 3 1%
Canada 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 279 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 49 17%
Student > Master 47 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 14%
Student > Bachelor 27 9%
Student > Postgraduate 19 6%
Other 81 27%
Unknown 31 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 136 46%
Psychology 22 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 5%
Social Sciences 10 3%
Other 35 12%
Unknown 57 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 05 July 2020.
All research outputs
#545,617
of 15,583,856 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,448
of 11,222 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,101
of 152,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,583,856 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 11,222 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 152,078 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 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.