↓ Skip to main content

Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
13 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
272 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
320 Mendeley
citeulike
3 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 recruitment to randomised controlled trials
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.mr000013.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shaun Treweek, Elizabeth Mitchell, Marie Pitkethly, Jonathan Cook, Monica Kjeldstrøm, Marit Johansen, Taina K Taskila, Frank Sullivan, Sue Wilson, Catherine Jackson, Ritu Jones, Pauline Lockhart

Abstract

Recruiting participants to trials can be extremely difficult. Identifying strategies that improve trial recruitment would benefit both trialists and health research.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 320 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 2%
Australia 4 1%
Germany 3 <1%
United States 3 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 296 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 62 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 61 19%
Researcher 58 18%
Other 23 7%
Student > Postgraduate 20 6%
Other 78 24%
Unknown 18 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 135 42%
Psychology 35 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 9%
Social Sciences 27 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 3%
Other 42 13%
Unknown 41 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 46. 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 21 June 2017.
All research outputs
#322,799
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#911
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,108
of 189,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#17
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 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 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 189,127 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.