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 |
Selecting a sample size for studies with repeated measures
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-13-100 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yi Guo, Henrietta L Logan, Deborah H Glueck, Keith E Muller |
| Abstract |
Many researchers favor repeated measures designs because they allow the detection of within-person change over time and typically have higher statistical power than cross-sectional designs. However, the plethora of inputs needed for repeated measures designs can make sample size selection, a critical step in designing a successful study, difficult. Using a dental pain study as a driving example, we provide guidance for selecting an appropriate sample size for testing a time by treatment interaction for studies with repeated measures. We describe how to (1) gather the required inputs for the sample size calculation, (2) choose appropriate software to perform the calculation, and (3) address practical considerations such as missing data, multiple aims, and continuous covariates. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 1 | 14% |
| Spain | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 71% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 43% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 951 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 7 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | <1% |
| Canada | 4 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Egypt | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | <1% |
| Unknown | 922 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 228 | 24% |
| Researcher | 147 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 117 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 51 | 5% |
| Student > Bachelor | 51 | 5% |
| Other | 201 | 21% |
| Unknown | 156 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 160 | 17% |
| Psychology | 137 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 68 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 61 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 52 | 5% |
| Other | 254 | 27% |
| Unknown | 219 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 16 August 2017.
All research outputs
#6,950,589
of 24,674,524 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,035
of 2,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,805
of 203,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#10
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,674,524 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,195 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 203,511 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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 59% of its contemporaries.