↓ Skip to main content

The Database for Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT) and Subsequent Regrouping by Clinical Specialty

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2012
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
135 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 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
The Database for Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT) and Subsequent Regrouping by Clinical Specialty
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0033677
Pubmed ID
Authors

Asba Tasneem, Laura Aberle, Hari Ananth, Swati Chakraborty, Karen Chiswell, Brian J. McCourt, Ricardo Pietrobon

Abstract

The ClinicalTrials.gov registry provides information regarding characteristics of past, current, and planned clinical studies to patients, clinicians, and researchers; in addition, registry data are available for bulk download. However, issues related to data structure, nomenclature, and changes in data collection over time present challenges to the aggregate analysis and interpretation of these data in general and to the analysis of trials according to clinical specialty in particular. Improving usability of these data could enhance the utility of ClinicalTrials.gov as a research resource.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Australia 2 2%
Unknown 106 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 18%
Student > Master 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 22 19%
Unknown 14 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 19%
Computer Science 19 17%
Engineering 10 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Other 30 27%
Unknown 17 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 22 March 2023.
All research outputs
#2,376,628
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#28,925
of 224,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,701
of 172,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#443
of 3,629 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 172,985 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,629 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.