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 |
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. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 33% |
| Chile | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 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 | 42 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 18% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Librarian | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 12 | 27% |
| Unknown | 3 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 53% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 18% |
| Unknown | 5 | 11% |
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
#13,363,602
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#2,776
of 8,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,534
of 293,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#47
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 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 8,483 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 293,167 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 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.