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 |
Abstracts reporting of HIV/AIDS randomized controlled trials in general medicine and infectious diseases journals: completeness to date and improvement in the quality since CONSORT extension for abstracts
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-016-0243-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jean Joel R. Bigna, Jean Jacques N. Noubiap, Serra Lem Asangbeh, Lewis N. Um, Paule Sandra D. Sime, Elvis Temfack, Mathurin Cyrille Tejiokem |
| Abstract |
Sufficiently detailed abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are important, because readers often base their assessment of a trial solely on information in the abstract. We aimed at comparing reporting quality of RCTs in HIV/AIDS medicine before and after the publication of the 2008 CONSORT extension for abstracts and to investigate factors associated with better reporting quality. We searched PubMed/Medline for HIV/AIDS RCTs published between 2006-07 (Pre-CONSORT) and 2014-15 (Post-CONSORT) in 40 leading general medicine and infectious diseases journals. Two investigators extracted data and scored abstracts. The primary outcome was the adjusted mean number of items reported among the 17 required. Proportions of abstracts reporting each of 17 items were considered as secondary outcome. The adjustment was done for journal field, CONSORT endorsement, abstract format, type of intervention, journal impact factor and authorship. This study received no funding. The adjusted mean number of reported items was 7.2 (95 % CI 6.6-7.7) in pre-CONSORT (n = 159) and 7.8 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 7.3-8.4) in post-CONSORT (n = 153) (mean difference 0.7; 95 % CI 0.1-1.2). Journal high impact factor (adjusted incidence rate ratio 2.16; 95 % CI 1.83-2.54), abstract with 13 authors or more (1.39; 95 % CI 1.07-1.79) and non-pharmacological intervention (1.19; 95 % CI 1.03-1.37) were independent factors for better reporting quality. There were significant improvements in reporting on participants, randomization, outcome results, registration and funding; regression for author contact; and no change for other items: title, design, interventions, objective, primary outcome, blinding, number randomized, recruitment, number analyzed, harms and conclusions. After the publication of the CONSORT extension for abstracts, the reporting quality of HIV/AIDS RCT abstracts in general medicine and infectious diseases journals has suboptimally improved. Thus, stricter adherence to the CONSORT for abstract are needed to improve the reporting quality of HIV/AIDS RCT abstracts. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Cameroon | 1 | 50% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 32 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 22% |
| Researcher | 5 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 9 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 16% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 9 | 28% |
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 13 October 2017.
All research outputs
#15,124,550
of 24,022,746 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,455
of 2,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,225
of 323,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#25
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,022,746 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,133 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 323,748 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.