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
| Title |
Review and publication of protocol submissions to Trials – what have we learned in 10 years?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13063-016-1743-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tianjing Li, Isabelle Boutron, Rustam Al-Shahi Salman, Erik Cobo, Ella Flemyng, Jeremy M. Grimshaw, Douglas G. Altman |
| Abstract |
Trials has 10 years of experience in providing open access publication of protocols for randomised controlled trials. In this editorial, the senior editors and editors-in-chief of Trials discuss editorial issues regarding managing trial protocol submissions, including the content and format of the protocol, timing of submission, approaches to tracking protocol amendments, and the purpose of peer reviewing a protocol submission. With the clarification and guidance provided, we hope we can make the process of publishing trial protocols more efficient and useful to trial investigators and readers. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 | 4 | 17% |
| France | 2 | 9% |
| Mexico | 1 | 4% |
| Italy | 1 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 4% |
| Denmark | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 10 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 65% |
| Scientists | 5 | 22% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 9% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 61 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 11% |
| Researcher | 6 | 10% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 15 | 25% |
| Unknown | 13 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 39% |
| Psychology | 5 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 15 | 25% |