↓ Skip to main content

Bias due to MEasurement Reactions In Trials to improve health (MERIT): protocol for research to develop MRC guidance

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, November 2018
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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
31 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
Bias due to MEasurement Reactions In Trials to improve health (MERIT): protocol for research to develop MRC guidance
Published in
Trials, November 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13063-018-3017-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa M. Miles, Diana Elbourne, Andrew Farmer, Martin Gulliford, Louise Locock, Jim McCambridge, Stephen Sutton, David P. French

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 33%
Student > Postgraduate 2 17%
Researcher 2 17%
Unspecified 2 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 4 33%
Unspecified 3 25%
Social Sciences 2 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 17%
Engineering 1 8%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 January 2019.
All research outputs
#842,214
of 13,700,089 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#267
of 3,460 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,075
of 351,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#58
of 517 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,700,089 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,460 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. 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 351,994 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 517 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.