↓ Skip to main content

Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
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 (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
44 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
96 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
299 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.mr000032.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valerie C Brueton, Jayne Tierney, Sally Stenning, Seeromanie Harding, Sarah Meredith, Irwin Nazareth, Greta Rait

Abstract

Loss to follow-up from randomised trials can introduce bias and reduce study power, affecting the generalisability, validity and reliability of results. Many strategies are used to reduce loss to follow-up and improve retention but few have been formally evaluated.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 44 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 299 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
United States 2 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Mozambique 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 290 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 63 21%
Researcher 51 17%
Unspecified 42 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 14%
Student > Bachelor 29 10%
Other 72 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 111 37%
Unspecified 55 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 13%
Psychology 28 9%
Social Sciences 25 8%
Other 40 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 16 May 2018.
All research outputs
#380,045
of 13,325,122 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,119
of 10,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,295
of 249,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,325,122 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,557 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 249,152 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 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.