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 |
Quality of reporting of clinical non-inferiority and equivalence randomised trials - update and extension
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1745-6215-13-214 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Petra Schiller, Nicole Burchardi, Michael Niestroj, Meinhard Kieser |
| Abstract |
Non-inferiority and equivalence trials require tailored methodology and therefore adequate conduct and reporting is an ambitious task. The aim of our review was to assess whether the criteria recommended by the CONSORT extension were followed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Colombia | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 70 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 20% |
| Researcher | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 19 | 26% |
| Unknown | 11 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 55% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 4% |
| Mathematics | 2 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Unknown | 12 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 07 October 2013.
All research outputs
#2,732,308
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#45
of 45 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,594
of 180,636 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#2
of 23 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 89th 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 5.3. 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 180,636 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.