↓ Skip to main content

The COMET Handbook: version 1.0

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#18 of 4,173)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
181 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
394 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
281 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
The COMET Handbook: version 1.0
Published in
Trials, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13063-017-1978-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paula R. Williamson, Douglas G. Altman, Heather Bagley, Karen L. Barnes, Jane M. Blazeby, Sara T. Brookes, Mike Clarke, Elizabeth Gargon, Sarah Gorst, Nicola Harman, Jamie J. Kirkham, Angus McNair, Cecilia A. C. Prinsen, Jochen Schmitt, Caroline B. Terwee, Bridget Young

Abstract

The selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial when designing clinical trials in order to compare the effects of different interventions directly. For the findings to influence policy and practice, the outcomes need to be relevant and important to key stakeholders including patients and the public, health care professionals and others making decisions about health care. It is now widely acknowledged that insufficient attention has been paid to the choice of outcomes measured in clinical trials. Researchers are increasingly addressing this issue through the development and use of a core outcome set, an agreed standardised collection of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all trials for a specific clinical area.Accumulating work in this area has identified the need for guidance on the development, implementation, evaluation and updating of core outcome sets. This Handbook, developed by the COMET Initiative, brings together current thinking and methodological research regarding those issues. We recommend a four-step process to develop a core outcome set. The aim is to update the contents of the Handbook as further research is identified.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 181 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 281 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 281 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 51 18%
Student > Master 42 15%
Researcher 40 14%
Other 24 9%
Student > Bachelor 20 7%
Other 59 21%
Unknown 45 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 132 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 9%
Psychology 13 5%
Social Sciences 11 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 2%
Other 29 10%
Unknown 65 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 122. 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 27 July 2019.
All research outputs
#167,564
of 15,814,075 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#18
of 4,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,881
of 269,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,814,075 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,173 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 269,700 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 2 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