↓ Skip to main content

Systematic review protocol assessing the processes for linking clinical trial registries and their published results

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 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.
Title
Systematic review protocol assessing the processes for linking clinical trial registries and their published results
Published in
BMJ Open, October 2016
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013048
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rabia Bashir, Adam G Dunn, Bashir, Rabia, Dunn, Adam G

Abstract

Clinical trial registries are an important source of information for tracking clinical trials from their inception through to their reporting, and have been used to measure publication bias and outcome reporting bias. Our aim is to survey and quantify the processes that have been used to identify links between clinical trial registries and published trial reports in studies that rely on these links to evaluate the completeness and accuracy of trial reporting. We will identify studies that describe a process for identifying the links between a trial registry included in the WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform and published trial results, and use those links to evaluate the completeness and accuracy of trial reporting. Information extracted from the studies will include the purpose and application domain of the study, registries used or searched, processes by which the links were identified, the study period and proportions for which links were found. We will summarise what is known about the number and availability of links between clinical trial registries and published results, and examine how automatic linking, inference and inquiry processes have been used to identify links since the introduction of trial registries. The systematic review is focused on the analysis of secondary data and does not require ethics approval. The results of the systematic review will be used to inform standard processes used to identify links to and from clinical trial registries in studies that evaluate the completeness and accuracy of clinical trial reports, as well as systematic reviews. Our findings will be disseminated by publishing the systematic review in a peer-reviewed journal, and by engaging with stakeholders from clinical trial registries and bibliographic databases.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 25%
Researcher 3 25%
Student > Bachelor 2 17%
Other 2 17%
Professor 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 17%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Social Sciences 1 8%
Other 2 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 November 2016.
All research outputs
#6,846,039
of 12,635,028 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#6,393
of 10,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,640
of 266,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#283
of 433 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,635,028 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,159 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 266,011 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 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 433 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.