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 |
Introduction to a generalized method for adaptive randomization in trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1745-6215-14-19 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zoë SJ Hoare, Christopher J Whitaker, Rhiannon Whitaker |
| Abstract |
Ideally clinical trials should use some form of randomization for allocating participants to the treatment groups under trial. As an integral part of the process of assessing the effectiveness of these treatment groups, randomization performed well can reduce, if not eliminate, some forms of bias that can be evident in non-randomized trials. Given the vast set of possible randomization methods to choose from we demonstrate a method that incorporates many of the advantages of these other methods. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 24 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 16% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 12% |
| Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 24% |
| Unknown | 2 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 36% |
| Psychology | 3 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 16% |
| Unknown | 5 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 January 2013.
All research outputs
#15,565,847
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#15
of 45 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,128
of 292,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#85
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 45 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one scored the same or higher as 30 of them.
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 292,078 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.