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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Using systematic reviews to inform NIHR HTA trial planning and design: a retrospective cohort
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-015-0102-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sheetal Bhurke, Andrew Cook, Anna Tallant, Amanda Young, Elaine Williams, James Raftery |
| Abstract |
Chalmers and Glasziou's paper published in 2014 recommends research funding bodies should mandate that proposals for additional primary research are built on systematic reviews of existing evidence showing what is already known. Jones et al. identified 11 (23 %) of 48 trials funded during 2006-8 by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) Programme did not reference a systematic review. This study did not explore the reasons for trials not referencing a systematic review or consider trials using any other evidence in the absence of a systematic review. Referencing a systematic review may not be possible in certain circumstances, for instance if the systematic review does not address the question being proposed in the trial. The current study extended Jones' study by exploring the reasons for why trials did not reference a systematic review and included a more recent cohort of trials funded in 2013 to determine if there were any changes in the referencing or use of systematic reviews. Two cohorts of NIHR HTA randomised controlled trials were included. Cohort I included the same trials as Jones et al. (with the exception of one trial which was discontinued). Cohort II included NIHR HTA trials funded in 2013. Data extraction was undertaken independently by two reviewers using full applications and trial protocols. Descriptive statistics was used and no formal statistical analyses were conducted. Five (11 %) trials of the 47 funded during 2006-2008 did not reference a systematic review. These 5 trials had warranted reasons for not referencing systematic reviews. All trials from Cohort II referenced a systematic review. A quarter of all those trials with a preceding systematic review used a different primary outcome than those stated in the reviews. The NIHR requires that proposals for new primary research are justified by existing evidence and the findings of this study confirm the adherence to this requirement with a high rate of applications using systematic reviews. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 11 | 42% |
| Spain | 2 | 8% |
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 11 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 62% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 19% |
| Scientists | 4 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 8 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 9 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 February 2021.
All research outputs
#911,538
of 24,764,450 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#80
of 2,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,101
of 404,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#2
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,764,450 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,203 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 404,259 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 21 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 95% of its contemporaries.