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 |
The curious case of an internal pilot in a multicentre randomised trial—time for a rethink?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40814-016-0113-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jonathan Alistair Cook, David John Beard, Johanna Rosemary Cook, Graeme Stewart MacLennan |
| Abstract |
Multicentre randomised trials are complex projects with many operational uncertainties. The embedding of a formal check upon study progress and viability at a pre-specified time point (sometimes referred to as an 'internal pilot') is becoming increasingly common within multicentre pragmatic randomised trials. However, it is worth considering this practice. We argue that most, if not all, multicentre trials have reassessment of the recruitment strategy and study processes whilst the study is running. Additionally, we propose discontinuation of the 'internal/external pilot study' terminology. Instead, we suggest for an alternative taxonomy along with greater recognition of the process of refinement which routinely occurs in trials and transparent reporting of it. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 20 | 56% |
| Netherlands | 4 | 11% |
| Portugal | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 20 | 56% |
| Scientists | 8 | 22% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 19% |
| Unknown | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 12% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 10 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 15% |
| Psychology | 3 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 13 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 28 September 2018.
All research outputs
#1,217,259
of 23,322,258 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#39
of 1,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,720
of 422,652 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,322,258 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,061 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 422,652 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them