↓ Skip to main content

Impact on mortality and cancer incidence rates of using random invitation from population registers for recruitment to trials

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, March 2011
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 (81st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Impact on mortality and cancer incidence rates of using random invitation from population registers for recruitment to trials
Published in
Trials, March 2011
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-12-61
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew Burnell, Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj, Andy Ryan, Sophia Apostolidou, Mariam Habib, Jatinderpal Kalsi, Steven Skates, Mahesh Parmar, Mourad W Seif, Nazar N Amso, Keith Godfrey, David Oram, Jonathan Herod, Karin Williamson, Howard Jenkins, Tim Mould, Robert Woolas, John Murdoch, Stephen Dobbs, Simon Leeson, Derek Cruickshank, Stuart Campbell, Lesley Fallowfield, Ian Jacobs, Usha Menon

Abstract

Participants in trials evaluating preventive interventions such as screening are on average healthier than the general population. To decrease this 'healthy volunteer effect' (HVE) women were randomly invited from population registers to participate in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) and not allowed to self refer. This report assesses the extent of the HVE still prevalent in UKCTOCS and considers how certain shortfalls in mortality and incidence can be related to differences in socioeconomic status.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 49 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 20%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 10 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 28 December 2015.
All research outputs
#4,508,716
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#28
of 45 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,681
of 121,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 45 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one scored the same or higher as 17 of them.
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 121,822 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.