↓ Skip to main content

Appraising the uptake and use of recommendations for a common outcome data set for clinical trials: a case study in fall injury prevention

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, March 2016
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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Appraising the uptake and use of recommendations for a common outcome data set for clinical trials: a case study in fall injury prevention
Published in
Trials, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13063-016-1259-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bethan Copsey, Sally Hopewell, Clemens Becker, Ian D. Cameron, Sarah E. Lamb

Abstract

Many researchers and professional bodies are seeking consensus for core outcomes for clinical trials. The Prevention of Falls Network Europe (ProFaNE) developed a common outcome data set for fall injury prevention trials 10 years ago. This study assesses the impact of these recommendations. A systematic search (up to 16 January 2015) was performed using Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed for articles citing the ProFaNE recommendations. Randomised trials on fall prevention in older people were selected for further analysis. Data were extracted on study characteristics and adherence to the key domains recommended by the ProFaNE consensus: falls, fall injury, physical activity, psychological consequences and health-related quality of life. Details of non-recommended outcome measures used were also recorded. The ProFaNE recommendations were cited in a total of 464 published articles, of which 34 were randomised trials on fall prevention in older people. Only one study (3 %) reported on all core domains. Most of the trials reported on falls (n = 32/34, 94 %) as a core outcome measure. Most of the recommendations within the falls domain were well-followed. Around half of the trials reported on fall-related injury (n = 16/34, 47 %). However, none reported the number of radiologically confirmed peripheral fracture events, which is the recommended outcome measure for injury. The other key domains (quality of life, physical activity and psychological consequences) were less frequently reported on, with a lack of consistency in the outcome measures used. The ProFaNE recommendations had a limited effect on standardising the reporting of outcomes in randomised trials on fall injury prevention in older people during the search period. Authors of consensus guidelines should consider maximising buy-in by including a diversity of geographic areas and academic disciplines at the development stage and using a solid dissemination strategy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 23%
Unspecified 4 18%
Student > Master 3 14%
Student > Postgraduate 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 8 36%
Unspecified 5 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 18%
Neuroscience 2 9%
Sports and Recreations 1 5%
Other 2 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 07 May 2016.
All research outputs
#881,717
of 11,383,332 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#331
of 2,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,641
of 288,830 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#17
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,383,332 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,692 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 288,830 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.