↓ Skip to main content

Citation networks of related trials are often disconnected: implications for bidirectional citation searches

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Citation networks of related trials are often disconnected: implications for bidirectional citation searches
Published in
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, July 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.11.015
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karen A. Robinson, Adam G. Dunn, Guy Tsafnat, Paul Glasziou

Abstract

Reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should set findings within the context of previous research. The resulting network of citations would also provide an alternative search method for clinicians, researchers, and systematic reviewers seeking to base decisions on all available evidence. We sought to determine the connectedness of citation networks of RCTs by examining direct (referenced trials) and indirect (through references of referenced trials, etc) citation of trials to one another.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Denmark 1 3%
Australia 1 3%
Unknown 27 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 19%
Librarian 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Other 8 26%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 48%
Social Sciences 5 16%
Computer Science 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 5 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 04 December 2014.
All research outputs
#4,358,380
of 16,109,489 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
#1,432
of 3,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,477
of 193,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
#13
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,109,489 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,173 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 193,537 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.