↓ Skip to main content

What is a pilot or feasibility study? A review of current practice and editorial policy

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
25 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
546 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1232 Mendeley
citeulike
6 CiteULike
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
What is a pilot or feasibility study? A review of current practice and editorial policy
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2010
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-10-67
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mubashir Arain, Michael J Campbell, Cindy L Cooper, Gillian A Lancaster

Abstract

In 2004, a review of pilot studies published in seven major medical journals during 2000-01 recommended that the statistical analysis of such studies should be either mainly descriptive or focus on sample size estimation, while results from hypothesis testing must be interpreted with caution. We revisited these journals to see whether the subsequent recommendations have changed the practice of reporting pilot studies. We also conducted a survey to identify the methodological components in registered research studies which are described as 'pilot' or 'feasibility' studies. We extended this survey to grant-awarding bodies and editors of medical journals to discover their policies regarding the function and reporting of pilot studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 1,232 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 22 2%
United States 12 <1%
Malaysia 6 <1%
Canada 5 <1%
Portugal 3 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Nigeria 2 <1%
Other 19 2%
Unknown 1157 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 271 22%
Student > Master 210 17%
Researcher 183 15%
Student > Bachelor 127 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 69 6%
Other 295 24%
Unknown 77 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 336 27%
Psychology 182 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 128 10%
Social Sciences 116 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 71 6%
Other 245 20%
Unknown 154 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 05 March 2019.
All research outputs
#665,899
of 15,045,928 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#86
of 1,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,503
of 125,844 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,045,928 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,401 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 125,844 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 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them