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.
Twitter Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The quality of reporting in cluster randomised crossover trials: proposal for reporting items and an assessment of reporting quality
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13063-016-1685-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah J. Arnup, Andrew B. Forbes, Brennan C. Kahan, Katy E. Morgan, Joanne E. McKenzie |
| Abstract |
The cluster randomised crossover (CRXO) design is gaining popularity in trial settings where individual randomisation or parallel group cluster randomisation is not feasible or practical. Our aim is to stimulate discussion on the content of a reporting guideline for CRXO trials and to assess the reporting quality of published CRXO trials. We undertook a systematic review of CRXO trials. Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL Plus as well as citation searches of CRXO methodological articles were conducted to December 2014. Reporting quality was assessed against both modified items from 2010 CONSORT and 2012 cluster trials extension and other proposed quality measures. Of the 3425 records identified through database searching, 83 trials met the inclusion criteria. Trials were infrequently identified as "cluster randomis(z)ed crossover" in title (n = 7, 8%) or abstract (n = 21, 25%), and a rationale for the design was infrequently provided (n = 20, 24%). Design parameters such as the number of clusters and number of periods were well reported. Discussion of carryover took place in only 17 trials (20%). Sample size methods were only reported in 58% (n = 48) of trials. A range of approaches were used to report baseline characteristics. The analysis method was not adequately reported in 23% (n = 19) of trials. The observed within-cluster within-period intracluster correlation and within-cluster between-period intracluster correlation for the primary outcome data were not reported in any trial. The potential for selection, performance, and detection bias could be evaluated in 30%, 81%, and 70% of trials, respectively. There is a clear need to improve the quality of reporting in CRXO trials. Given the unique features of a CRXO trial, it is important to develop a CONSORT extension. Consensus amongst trialists on the content of such a guideline is essential. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 29% |
| Finland | 1 | 14% |
| El Salvador | 1 | 14% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 4 | 57% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 29% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 16% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 19% |
| Unknown | 6 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 50% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 6% |
| Mathematics | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 08 December 2016.
All research outputs
#2,865,868
of 22,908,162 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#1,030
of 5,896 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,894
of 419,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#20
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,908,162 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,896 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 419,595 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.