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 |
A systematic review of cluster randomised trials in residential facilities for older people suggests how to improve quality
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-13-127 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Karla Diaz-Ordaz, Robert Froud, Bart Sheehan, Sandra Eldridge |
| Abstract |
Previous reviews of cluster randomised trials have been critical of the quality of the trials reviewed, but none has explored determinants of the quality of these trials in a specific field over an extended period of time. Recent work suggests that correct conduct and reporting of these trials may require more than published guidelines. In this review, our aim was to assess the quality of cluster randomised trials conducted in residential facilities for older people, and to determine whether (1) statistician involvement in the trial and (2) strength of journal endorsement of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement influence quality. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 | 2 | 22% |
| Ireland | 2 | 22% |
| Canada | 1 | 11% |
| Germany | 1 | 11% |
| Spain | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 22% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 47 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 17% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 12 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 11% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 6% |
| Mathematics | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 19% |
| Unknown | 13 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 February 2019.
All research outputs
#4,861,654
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#769
of 2,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,990
of 214,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#9
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,109 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 63% 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 214,900 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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 71% of its contemporaries.