↓ Skip to main content

Systematic evaluation of the methodology of randomized controlled trials of anticoagulation in patients with cancer

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Systematic evaluation of the methodology of randomized controlled trials of anticoagulation in patients with cancer
Published in
BMC Cancer, February 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2407-13-76
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gabriel Rada, Holger J Schünemann, Nawman Labedi, Pierre El-Hachem, Victor F Kairouz, Elie A Akl

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that are inappropriately designed or executed may provide biased findings and mislead clinical practice. In view of recent interest in the treatment and prevention of thrombotic complications in cancer patients we evaluated the characteristics, risk of bias and their time trends in RCTs of anticoagulation in patients with cancer.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
France 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 40 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 19%
Researcher 8 19%
Student > Postgraduate 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Librarian 4 9%
Other 12 28%
Unknown 2 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 3 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 February 2013.
All research outputs
#12,677,522
of 22,696,971 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#2,638
of 8,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,075
of 287,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#45
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,696,971 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,253 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 287,569 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.