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 |
Acceptance checklist for clinical effectiveness pilot trials: a systematic approach
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-13-78 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Georgina Charlesworth, Karen Burnell, Juanita Hoe, Martin Orrell, Ian Russell |
| Abstract |
Conducting a pilot trial is important in preparing for, and justifying investment in, the ensuing larger trial. Pilot trials using the same design and methods as the subsequent main trial are ethically and financially advantageous especially when pilot and main trial data can be pooled. For explanatory trials in which internal validity is paramount, there is little room for variation of methods between the pilot and main trial. For pragmatic trials, where generalisability or external validity is key, greater flexibility is written into trial protocols to allow for 'real life' variation in procedures. We describe the development of a checklist for use in decision-making on whether pilot data can be carried forward to the main trial dataset without compromising trial integrity. We illustrate the use of the checklist using a pragmatic trial of psychosocial interventions for family carers of people with dementia as a case study. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 36% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 8 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 50% |
| Scientists | 4 | 29% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 21% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 3% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 134 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 31 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 14% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Lecturer | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 23 | 16% |
| Unknown | 29 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 20% |
| Psychology | 24 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 18 | 13% |
| Unknown | 40 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 11 October 2017.
All research outputs
#2,126,601
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#312
of 2,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,446
of 199,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#6
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,109 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 199,324 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 well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.