↓ Skip to main content

Design, analysis, and presentation of crossover trials

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, April 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
4 tweeters


171 Dimensions

Readers on

408 Mendeley
1 CiteULike
2 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.
Design, analysis, and presentation of crossover trials
Published in
Trials, April 2009
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-10-27
Pubmed ID

Edward J Mills, An-Wen Chan, Ping Wu, Andy Vail, Gordon H Guyatt, Douglas G Altman


Although crossover trials enjoy wide use, standards for analysis and reporting have not been established. We reviewed methodological aspects and quality of reporting in a representative sample of published crossover trials.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 408 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 1%
Netherlands 3 <1%
United States 3 <1%
Sweden 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 385 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 70 17%
Student > Master 69 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 63 15%
Student > Bachelor 43 11%
Other 27 7%
Other 100 25%
Unknown 36 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 129 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 9%
Psychology 25 6%
Sports and Recreations 19 5%
Other 94 23%
Unknown 66 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 22 August 2019.
All research outputs
of 15,751,306 outputs
Outputs from Trials
of 4,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 92,916 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,751,306 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 92,916 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 1 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