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 |
Costs and staffing resource requirements for adaptive clinical trials: quantitative and qualitative results from the Costing Adaptive Trials project
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, October 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-021-02124-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nina Wilson, Katie Biggs, Sarah Bowden, Julia Brown, Munyaradzi Dimairo, Laura Flight, Jamie Hall, Anna Hockaday, Thomas Jaki, Rachel Lowe, Caroline Murphy, Philip Pallmann, Mark A. Pilling, Claire Snowdon, Matthew R. Sydes, Sofía S. Villar, Christopher J. Weir, Jessica Welburn, Christina Yap, Rebecca Maier, Helen Hancock, James M. S. Wason |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 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 | 18 | 36% |
| United States | 4 | 8% |
| Brazil | 2 | 4% |
| Denmark | 1 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 24 | 48% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 29 | 58% |
| Scientists | 15 | 30% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 22% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 4% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 10 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 13% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 9% |
| Mathematics | 2 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 12 | 52% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 11 November 2021.
All research outputs
#1,050,147
of 23,211,181 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#730
of 3,494 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,569
of 439,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#14
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,211,181 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 3,494 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 439,141 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.