↓ Skip to main content

The INTERVAL trial to determine whether intervals between blood donations can be safely and acceptably decreased to optimise blood supply: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
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 INTERVAL trial to determine whether intervals between blood donations can be safely and acceptably decreased to optimise blood supply: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Trials, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-15-363
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carmel Moore, Jennifer Sambrook, Matthew Walker, Zoe Tolkien, Stephen Kaptoge, David Allen, Susan Mehenny, Jonathan Mant, Emanuele Di Angelantonio, Simon G Thompson, Willem Ouwehand, David J Roberts, John Danesh

Abstract

Ageing populations may demand more blood transfusions, but the blood supply could be limited by difficulties in attracting and retaining a decreasing pool of younger donors. One approach to increase blood supply is to collect blood more frequently from existing donors. If more donations could be safely collected in this manner at marginal cost, then it would be of considerable benefit to blood services. National Health Service (NHS) Blood and Transplant in England currently allows men to donate up to every 12 weeks and women to donate up to every 16 weeks. In contrast, some other European countries allow donations as frequently as every 8 weeks for men and every 10 weeks for women. The primary aim of the INTERVAL trial is to determine whether donation intervals can be safely and acceptably decreased to optimise blood supply whilst maintaining the health of donors.

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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Unknown 80 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 23%
Researcher 17 21%
Student > Master 12 15%
Unspecified 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 11%
Other 16 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 34%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 12%
Unspecified 10 12%
Psychology 4 5%
Other 18 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 03 March 2016.
All research outputs
#6,799,561
of 12,547,386 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#1,745
of 3,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,376
of 208,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#10
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,547,386 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 208,554 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 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.