↓ Skip to main content

Managing clinical trials

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, July 2010
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
38 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
263 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Managing clinical trials
Published in
Trials, July 2010
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-11-78
Pubmed ID
Authors

Barbara Farrell, Sara Kenyon, Haleema Shakur

Abstract

Managing clinical trials, of whatever size and complexity, requires efficient trial management. Trials fail because tried and tested systems handed down through apprenticeships have not been documented, evaluated or published to guide new trialists starting out in this important field. For the past three decades, trialists have invented and reinvented the trial management wheel. We suggest that to improve the successful, timely delivery of important clinical trials for patient benefit, it is time to produce standard trial management guidelines and develop robust methods of evaluation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 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 263 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 2%
Germany 3 1%
Denmark 3 1%
United States 3 1%
New Zealand 2 <1%
China 2 <1%
Singapore 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Other 7 3%
Unknown 233 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 60 23%
Student > Master 54 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 11%
Student > Postgraduate 20 8%
Student > Bachelor 19 7%
Other 66 25%
Unknown 16 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 98 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 10%
Social Sciences 18 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 14 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 5%
Other 67 25%
Unknown 25 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 13 April 2021.
All research outputs
#735,903
of 17,469,628 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#165
of 4,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,272
of 178,488 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,469,628 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 4,620 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 178,488 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them